BABILU SANKAR Vs. PADMANABHA SWAMI TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a Senior Clerk in the Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple, Thiruvananthapuram is also the Secretary of Sree Padmanabha Swami Kshetra Karmachari Sangham, which is one of the unions of the employees of the said temple. Ext.P1 Mathilakam Order, dated 16.10.2019, was issued by the Executive Officer of Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple pursuant to the decision to conduct referendum on 17.11.2019 for electing single recognized union. Obviously, such a decision was taken in terms of the judgment of this court in O.P.No.18309/2000 and the order dated 11.12.2013 in SLP(Civil)No.11295/2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P2 notice to all unions of the temple employees. As a matter of fact, even before the issuance of Ext.P1, to be precise on 26.9.2019, petitioner's union submitted a representation requiring, either to regularise the temporary employees or to enfranchise them in the referendum. In the writ petition, it is stated that there are altogether 155 permanent employees and 114 temporary employees who have put in more than 4 to 5 years service as temporary service, in the temple. By way of prelude to the process of referendum a draft voters list was published on 2.10.2019. The petitioner himself would admit that in the said draft voters list temporary employees were not included. Still, the petitioner's union did not file any objection to the draft voter's list published on 2.10.2019. The contention is that since the petitioner's union had already submitted Ext.P3 representation seeking inclusion of temporary employees in the voter's list, they have not chosen to submit a separate objection to the Ext.P1 draft voters list. Be that as it may, fact is that no objection was filed to the draft voters list, which was published on 2.10.2019 and in the circumstances, the draft voters list was finalized and it was published on 11.10.2019. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Heard Sri.C.S.Manu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.G.Jayasankar, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents and also Sri.P.Viswanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

(3.) As stated hereinbefore, Ext.P1 Mathilakam Order was issued by the first respondent pursuant to the decision to conduct referendum on 17.11.2019 for electing single recognized union. In pursuance of the said decision and to conduct election on 17.11.2019, a draft voters list was published on 2.10.2019. From the pleadings of the petitioner itself, it is evident that the petitioner's union had not submitted any objection to the draft voters list published on 2.10.2019. Petitioner's contention is that his union did not file any objection to the draft voters list published on 2.10.2019 as Ext.P3 representation seeking inclusion of temporary employees was already submitted by it before the first respondent. The said submission itself would reveal that as against the draft voters list published on 2.10.2019 the petitioner or his union had not submitted any objection. Evidently, in the absence of any objection to the draft voters list from any quarters the first respondent finalised the same and a final voters list was published on 11.10.2019. In this context, it is to be noted that even after publication of the draft voters list on 2.10.2019, the petitioner who was fully aware of the fact that the temporary employees were not included in the said draft voters list and of the pendency of representation submitted for inclusion, has not chosen to take up the matter appropriately. In other words, the petitioner has not taken steps to redress the grievance regarding non- consideration of Ext.P3 representation at the appropriate time. As noticed hereinbefore, the referendum is scheduled to be held on 17.11.2019. All the arrangements for conducting the same, including the publication of final voters list were already made. As stated earlier, the petitioner is a Senior Clerk in the temple. In other words, he is a regular employee of the temple. It may be true that he is the Secretary of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Kshethra Karmachari Sangham. The captioned writ petition is not filed as a public interest litigation. So also, it is not a writ petition filed in a representative capacity. From the pleadings in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner is that temporary employees are having a right to participate in the election. At the same time, on a careful scanning of the pleadings in the writ petition and the materials on record, we do not find any material, factual or legal, which would substantiate such a claim. We take note of these aspects in view of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. In such circumstances, a final voters list is published and the referendum is scheduled to be held on 17.11.2019. Based on the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the referendum stated to be held on 17.11.2019 in invocation of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.