Krishnankutty and others v. Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (MILMA) and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH CHAITHRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 11179 of 2016 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): - ------------- 1. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 40, (S/O.SIVASANKARAN), KANNAMPURATHU HOUSE, KUTTANASSERY (P.O), THIRUVAZHIYODE, PALAKKAD NOW WORKING AS PLANT ATTENDER, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., PALAKKAD DAIRY, KALLEPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SANTHOSH KUMAR. K, AGED 40, - (S/O.BALAKRISHNAN), AYANIKATTIL HOUSE, VELINAZHI (P.O.), CHERUPULASSERY, PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS PLANT ATTENDER, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., PALAKKAD DAIRY, KALLEPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SATHEESH V. , AGED 40 (S/O.VELUSWAMY K), AYYAKOUNDAN CHALLA, KOSHIPPARA P.O., PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS PLANT ATTENDER, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., PALAKKAD DAIRY, KALLEPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. MURALI. K, AGED 40, (S/O.KESAVAN), - POULACHAL POTTA, POTHUVAKKAD, PALLASSANA, PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS PLANT ATTENDER, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., PALAKKAD DAIRY, KALLEPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. SUBRAMANIAN K, AGED 40, (S/O.KARUMAN @ KESAVAN), AMBALAKKAD HOUSE, KALLEPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS PLANT ATTENDER, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., PALAKKAD DAIRY, KALLEPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. HARIDAS. T.K, AGED 40, (S/O.BALAKRISHNAN EZHUTHCHAN), THEKKINKATTIL HOUSE, THOTTAKKARA (PO), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS PLANT ATTENDER, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., PALAKKAD DAIRY, KALLEPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. SATHEESAN P.K, AGED 39 (S/O.KRISHNAN), W.P.(C) No. 11179/2016 : 2 : PANAMKAVU PARAMBU, EDATHARA (PO), PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS PLANT ATTENDER, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., PALAKKAD DAIRY, KALLEPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. SUBRAMANIAN C.S., AGED 40, (S/O.SANKARAN), CHENGODE (PO), ODANUR, PARLI, PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS PLANT ATTENDER, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., PALAKKAD DIARY, KALLEPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 9. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 40, (S/O.MATHU KUMARAN), MAYAPPALLAM, KANJICODE (PO), PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS PLANT ATTENDER, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., PALAKKAD DIARY, KALLEPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. (MILMA), REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MILMA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. 2. MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (MRCMPU LTD)673 001. 3. THE DAIRY MANAGER, PALAKKAD DAIRY, KALLEPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 688 005. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R BY SRI. V. VIJULAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SMT.LATHA ANAND R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 11179/2016 : 3 : WP(C).No. 11179 of 2016 (V) -------------------------------- : 3 : ## **APPENDIX** ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ----------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 28.3.2012. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 5.4.14 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 8.4.14 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 8.10.14 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.10.15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 13.10.15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.03.12 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P7(A): TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 17.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P7(B): TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.10.15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.03.12 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P8(A): TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.04.15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P8(B): TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 07.10.15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.03.12 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P9(A): TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 06.11.15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 05.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD W.P.(C) No. 11179/2016 : 4 : ## RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.09.12 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.11.12 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER. EXT.P12(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 05.12.15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.11.12 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER. EXT.P13(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 11.12.14 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER. EXT.P13(B) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.12.15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 04.12.2003 IN O.P.NO.11711/2002 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 31.10.2006. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.11.2006 ISSUED BY MILMA. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.GO(P) NO. 19/2011 AD DATED D14.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------ /True Copy/ rv P.A to Judge. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ---------------------------------- W.P. (C) No. 11179 of 2016 (V) ---------------------------------Dated this the 31[st ] day of March, 2016. ## JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel on both sides, apart from perusing the record. 2. Petitioners—9 in number—are working as Plant Attenders in the second respondent, which is under the control of the first respondent, the Apex Federation. They were initially appointed on a contract basis for a period of one year and seem to have had their term extended intermittently. They are said to be working for the last six years. 3. Since the petitioners are qualified to hold the post on a permanent basis, they have submitted representations to the authorities concerned, but to no avail. Apprehending that their services would be terminated after the expiry of the present period, they have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: 1. Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioners under respondents 1 to 3 and direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service till they are regularised in service, in the circumstances of the case. W.P.(C.) No. 11179/2016 -2- 2. A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners and to treat the petitioners as regular and permanent employees and to grant all benefits available to such employees to them also. 3. Issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order which is deemed just and fit in the circumstances of the case. 4. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Federation has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Arbitration Court under Section 69(1)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (the Act). 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have neither any statutory nor any contractual right to have it enforced by taking recourse to Section 69 of the Act. According to him, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can do substantial justice by invoking its extra ordinary powers. 6. Attractive as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, the issue of alternative remedy is perennial and has W.P.(C.) No. 11179/2016 -3- refused to die down. The Courts have repeatedly held that the aspect of alternative remedy is only a self-imposed limitation, insofar as the invocation of Article 226 is concerned. At the same time, the Courts have served a caveat upon themselves that once the alternative remedy is efficacious, it is inadvisable for the Courts to usurp the jurisdiction of any other adjudicatory forum in the name of doing substantial justice. 7. In the present instance, the petitioners are on tenural basis having been appointed temporarily with their terms extended periodically. In the face of the definitive judicial pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3)[1] , it is inappropriate for this Court to invoke its extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide, pure and simple, a service dispute, which can be effectively taken care of by the quasi judicial authority constituted under Section 69 of the Act. Any observation on the merits of the matter by this Court at this juncture could be to the benefit of neither of the parties to the lis. 8. Accordingly, refraining from making any observation on the - 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 W.P.(C.) No. 11179/2016 -4- merits of the matter, this Court dismisses the writ petition purely on the preliminary issue of alternative remedy. I, therefore, make it clear that the petitioners are at liberty to explore other avenues of grievance redressal as have been statutorily available. No order as to costs. sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE. rv