K.L. RUKMINI, D/O. KRISHNAN, KANATTU HOUSE, NEENDAPARA PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI. P.M. PAREETH SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEEL Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P-5 order of the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, "the Board ") dated 17.07.2007, regularizing certain contractual employees in the service of the Board along with some employment exchange candidates, approached this Court. According to the petitioner, those regularized employees are junior to the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, she is also entitled for absorption.

(2.) The petitioner refers to Ext.P-3 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, in ID MP No.4/2001 in ID No.12/1998, wherein it is held that as the petitioner herein is a worker under the Board. Thus, it is urged that there is no difficulty in regularizing the employment of the petitioner.

(3.) In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the award in ID No.12/1998 as this may have an impact on this writ petition as well. The award in ID No.12/1998 arose consequent upon a dispute raised by 14 persons, who were originally engaged as petty contractors by the Board at the inspection bungalows erected in connection with the Lower Periyar H.E. Project. They claimed that they are workmen under the Board. The stand of the Board was that they are only engaged as petty contractors and their service would be terminated on completion of the project. The Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, overruling the objection of the Board, held that there exists employer - workman relationship between the Board and the 14 persons. This was challenged by the Board in WP(C) No.21068/2006. This Court did not interfere with the finding of the tribunal that the 14 persons were engaged in a contract of service and are not petty contractors and therefore, those 14 persons engaged by the Board have to be treated as workmen under the Board. However, this Court, in that case, held that they were engaged by the Board as contract workers. It was also observed in the above case that if those contract workers are entitled for absorption on account of their engagement after the termination of the project, they are free to take up their claim for regularization in appropriate manner before the appropriate authority.