R.SHAJIKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the case projected in these Writ Petitions the petitioners had worked as Watchmen on daily wages under the 2nd respondent Kerala State Warehousing Corporation from the year 2002 to 2006 and that later, in 2006, the 2nd respondent Corporation had decided to appoint the petitioners and similarly placed casual employees in the category of Class IV Grade II on contract basis for a period of six years. But that the 2nd respondent Corporation had later terminated the services of the petitioners with effect from 6.2.2007 in the light of the verdicts rendered by this Court in cases, where the aforestated appointments were under challenge. That some of the relieved employees challenged their termination from service before the Labour Department and consequently, industrial dispute was raised and the same was later referred to the Labour Court, Ernakulam for adjudication and ultimately, the said dispute was settled through a mediation done under the behest of the Mediation Centre attached to this Court, by virtue of which the 2nd respondent Corporation had agreed to consider the grievance of the employees. Consequently Ext.P -5 award was passed in terms of that settlement. Ext.P -6 is the statement filed by the 2nd respondent Corporation before the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam, in the said matter. Some of the other employees including petitioners had approached the Labour Officer, Ernakulam, challenging the termination of service, upon which, the said Labour Officer issued notices to the respondent Corporation seeking their explanation in the matter. To that, the 2nd respondent Corporation had submitted Ext.P -6 statement before the Labour Officer, in which the respondents had clarified that they would make appointment to the post of Class IV Grade II employees by conducting interview to ascertain the present status and position and that the appointments will be effected from the rank list. That the 2nd respondent had taken such a stand in tune with the direction in a letter issued by the 1st respondent State Government. It is averred that thereafter the 2nd respondent Corporation conducted interview of all the relieved employees including the petitioners herein, pursuant to which the 2nd respondent prepared Ext.P -14 rank list, in which, the petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 23553/2015 appeared as rank Nos.69, 57, 66, 43, 62, 63, 42, 58, 54, 65, 78 and 77 and the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 24738/2016 is included as serial No.64 thereof. It is the case of the petitioners that the said rank list is valid and current even now and that there are 100 vacancies of Class IV Grade II employees in the 2nd respondent Corporation, out of which, only hardly around 40 vacancies have been filled up by appointing candidates included in Ext.P -14 rank list. That respondents 1 and 2 refused to appoint the remaining candidates due to extraneous considerations and that it is learnt that the 2nd respondent is opting to going for fresh recruitment to fill up such vacancies and most of the petitioners have already crossed the upper age limit for seeking public employment. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petitions (Civil) with the following prayers:

(2.) When the matter was taken up for consideration, the 2nd respondent had sought time to submit statement in the matter. Later, the 2nd respondent has filed a statement dated 3.8.2016 through their learned Standing Counsel. It is contended therein that as per Ext.R -2(a) rules, the 2nd respondent Corporation is obliged to follow the reservation pattern as envisaged in direct recruitment for services under the Government of Kerala. It is pointed out that the petitioners were earlier working in the respondent Corporation on daily wage for some time and subsequently, they were appointed on contract basis for six years and later the Board authorised the Managing Director to terminate their services on the ground that the appointments were irregular. That all the petitioners were terminated from service of the Corporation on 3.2.2007, upon which some of the employees had filed W.P.(C).No.5183/2007, which was dismissed by this Court and later Writ Appeal was filed (W.A.No.2050/2007) was also dismissed, which was also confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.24337/2007.

(3.) But it is further stated in the said statement that some of the employees had approached the Labour Court, Ernakulam, and filed I.D.No.14/2014 for reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits, in which the Labour Court had passed Ext.P -5 award on the basis of Ext.P -4 memorandum of settlement. The said settlement provides as follows: