Biju N.R. and Anuraj P v. Biju Kumar K and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012/30TH SRAVANA 1934** **WA.No. 1504 of 2012 () IN WPC/16099/2012** **----------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN .NO./ IN WPC.16099/2012 DATED 2.8.2012** **APPELLANT(S):** **------------** **1. BIJU N.R., AGED 35 YEARS SON OF RAGHAVAN T RESIDING AT NALUTHUNDUVILAYIL PADINJATTAKARA PO THEVALAKKARA KOLLAM 690524** **2. ANURAJ P, AGED 27 YEARS** - **S/O.K PRABHAKARAN RESIDING AT THAMARAL CHAVARA SOUTH PO KOLLAM 691584** **BY SR. ADV.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR ADS. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH** **SMT.SMITHA GEORGE** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. BIJU KUMAR K., AGED 37 YEARS** - **S/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAIR VALIYAVEETTIL KIZHAKKATHIL MULLAKKERI PANMANA PO KOLLAM DISTRICT, 690 524** **2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** **3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARIAT DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001** **4. THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LIMITED (KMML) SANKARAMANGALAM CHAVARA KOLLAM 691583 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN** **5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LIMITED(KMML) SANKARAMANGALAM CHAVARA KOLLAM 691583.** ## **WA NO. 1504 OF 2012** **6. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LIMITED (KMML) SANKARAMANGALAM CHAVARA KOLLAM 691 583** **7. THE GENERAL MANAGER (P & A) THE KERALA MINERALALS & METALS LIMITED (KMML) SANKAAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM - 691 583.** **8. THE JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (P & A) THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LIMITED (KMML) SANKAAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM - 691 583.** **9. M/S KMML LAPA (KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED LAND ACQUIRED PERSONS ASSOCIATION),** **CONSTRUCTION AND LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (REGN. NO. Q 1354), TITANIUM COMPLEX, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 583, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,** **10. SURJEET SURENDRAN, USHAS BHAVANAM, VADAKKUMTHALA MEKKU, VADAKKUTHALA P.O - 690 536, KOLLAM DISTRICT** **BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN BY ADV. SRI.M.N.MANMADAN BY ADV. SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-08-2012, ALONG WITH WA. 1522/2012, WA. 1543/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **jm** ## **Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.Nos. 1504, 1522 and 1543 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.** Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as counsel appearing for the respondents. In pursuance of Ext.P1 judgment dated 11.03.2011, admittedly selection process is initiated through Restructuring & Internal Audit Board (for short 'RIAB'). When the selection process by the 3[rd] respondent company was handed over to RIAB as directed by the Government as per Government Order dated 23.06.2012, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16099 of 2012 approached the learned Single Judge seeking the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 5 to issue a fresh notification for the appointment of junior workers under the third respondent as directed in Exhibit P1 and conduct a proper selection in a fair and reasonable manner. ii. Declare that the appointment of temporary or contract workers of the 8[th] respondent society without affording opportunity to others to contest for the work is illegal. iii. Issue appropriate writ declaring that political parties or Trade Union have no right to submit list WA Nos. 1504, 1522 & 1543 of 2012 -:2:- of persons or suggest persons who should be employed by the 3[rd] respondent without any criteria ignoring all principles of fairness and transparency. iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 3 to 7 to appoint temporary contract workers in the 3[rd] respondent company from the existing contract workers of the Company and from the persons who were working as contract workers in the 3[rd] respondent company. v. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to 3[rd] respondent to approve the list provided by all political parties and trade unions including Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) if any person or persons are selected or appointed based on list submitted by political parties or trade unions. vi. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 5[th] respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P13 within a time limit to be specified by this Hon'ble Court. vii. Mould and grand such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems just and necessary and that may be prayed for by the petitioner while hearing the W.P. ” 2. Initially an interim order was sought directing respondents 3 to 7 not to engage/employ anyone for any work under the 3[rd] respondent company without affording an opportunity to all eligible persons to get such engagement/appointment by following a fair and transparent selection process, pending disposal of the writ petition. This WA Nos. 1504, 1522 & 1543 of 2012 -:3:- came to be granted. Later on there was an application for vacating the interim order and the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass an order on 02.08.2011 in I.A. No.10591 of 2012 which is the subject matter of the present writ appeals. 3. The learned Judge did not interfere with the interim order and therefore respondents 10 and 11 before the learned Single Judge have come before this Court, apart from the Society which was a party to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that the 3[rd] respondent Company has two Units, one is TP Unit and another is Sponge Unit as claimed by the writ petitioner in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. Apparently, the selection process through RIAB is under progress only in respect of TP unit and not in respect of Sponge Unit. It is also not in dispute that in 1980 for expansion of the 3[rd] respondent Company several lands were acquired and at that time certain arrangement was done as a rehabilitation programme for the land loosers; that is to provide employment to one member of each family which has lost land in the WA Nos. 1504, 1522 & 1543 of 2012 -:4:- acquisition proceedings. However, right from 1980 such rehabilitation scheme was not implemented in a strict compliance is the complaint of the respondent Society before the learned Single Judge. The fact remains, who should work for the 3[rd] respondent Company till the selection process is completed through RIAB. 4. As already stated above, the writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge complaining that there is no fair and proper selection process and they must also be considered for the junior worker post in the company so far as TP unit is concerned. Whether the writ petitioner and similarly placed persons have a right to demand such relief is a matter to be decided by the learned Single Judge. Apparently, the writ petitioner works in the sponge unit occasionally and not on regular basis and it is also not in dispute that he was given engagement in the TP Unit. By filing an amendment application he claimed that he was working at TP Unit also occasionally. As already stated above, the learned Single Judge while considering WA Nos. 1504, 1522 & 1543 of 2012 -:5:- the right of the parties have to hold what vested right the petitioner has, to seek the relief he has sought for in the writ petition. According to Mr.Anand, the learned counsel representing the Company/Society which is formed for implementing the rehabilitation scheme is giving names of 175 workers per week at a time to work in the company till the selection process is completed by RIAB. When the main relief sought in the writ petition was to consider the claim of the petitioner also for regular employment through selection process undertaken by RIAB, can he seek for this interim relief? 5. According to the Society's stand substantiated by the stand of the learned counsel for the Company, as on the date of filing the writ petition it was the Society who was sponsoring the names of 175 workers to be engaged on temporary basis by lots in all fairness. The said arrangement has to continue till the selection process undertaken by RIAB is completed. Otherwise the work arrangement done between the employer and the Society till now would get disturbed as the members of the Society also are claiming preferential right to secure employment in the selection WA Nos. 1504, 1522 & 1543 of 2012 -:6:- process. In that view of the matter, the 10[th] and 11[th] respondents were justified in asking for modification of the interim order issued by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are of the opinion, the appeals deserve to be allowed holding that the appellant Company has to proceed with the working arrangement in TP Unit as they were doing as on the date of filing of the writ petition which came to be disturbed with the intervention of the Court by an interim order. It is also made clear that the appellant company shall gear up the selection process and must complete the entire selection process as expeditiously as possible as directed by this Court at Ext.P1 but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These Writ Appeals are allowed as above. **Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice.** **A.M. Shaffique, Judge.** ttb/21/08 WA Nos. 1504, 1522 & 1543 of 2012 -:7:-