Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of as above; award set a...

The Managing Director Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram v. S. John and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 24345 of 2008 (W)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Judgment Date
2017-10-13
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned ex parte award is set aside for reconsideration. The Water Authority is directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,40,000 to the workers through their counsel by 15/12/2017. The matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, with a direction to re-admit the case and dispose of it by 31/3/2018. If the workers remain in service with the Water Authority, their services shall not be terminated until a decision is taken by the Tribunal. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 18/12/2017. The Water Authority is urged to engage counsel with Labour Law expertise for future proceedings. The petition is disposed of as above.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of as above; award set aside for reconsideration with costs; directions issued for timely re-adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal; continuation of workers in service until decision.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • The Managing Director Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram

Respondents

  • S. John, Elluvila Puthenveedu, Vampannur, Aruvikkara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • R. Unni, Ujitha Bhavan, Vampannur, Aruvikkara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • M. Sreekumaran Nair, Pangayil Veedu, Kadampanadu, Cheriyakonni P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • M. Sivasankaran Nair, ThottarikathU Puthen Veedu, Cheriyakonni P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • M. Sathi, Charuvila Puthen Veedu, Vampannur, Aruvikkara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • V. Surendran, Kattukulathil Veedu, Karumooola Vampannur, Aruvikkara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • M. Gopalakrishnan, ThottarikathU Puthen Veedu, Kadampanadu, Cheriyakonni P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • S. Preman, Vazhuttuthadatharikathu Veedu, Valiyara, Vellandau P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • S. Augustine, Vilayil Veedu, Vampannur, Aruvikkara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • N. Jayan, KarumthottathU Kuzhivila Veedu, Vempannur, Aruvikkara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • M. Prabhakaran Nair, Kunnil Veedu, Kadampanadu, Cheriyakonni P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • D. Rajendran, Charuvila Veedu, Vempannur, Aruvikkara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • Dileepkumar P. J., S/O Purushothaman Nair, Plavila Puthen Veedu, Vempannur, Aruvikkara P.O.
  • Asoka Kumar.G., S/O Gopalan.M., Alarathala Mele Puthenveedu, Perumpuzhuthoor P.O., Neyyattinkara
  • Ajith Kumar G., S/O K. Krishnan Nair, Geen Valley, Vempannur, Aruvikkara P.O.
  • J. Kumar Binu, S/O Johnson, ChillumVila, Venmizhavu Veedu, ThirupPura m P.O., Neyyattinkara
  • Mohan Nair.G., S/O S. Gopala Pillai, Radha Bhavan, Vempannoor, Aruvikkara P.O.
  • Prasanth M., S/O Mohanan, Plavila Mele Puthen Veedu, Vempannoor, Aruvikkara P.O.
  • T. Baiju, S/O J. Titus, Biju Bhavan, Kalkuzhi, Mancha P.O., Nedumangadu
  • Ratheesh Kumar.O., S/O B. Omana, Melevilakathu Veedu, Thamalam, Poojappura P.O., Trivandrum
  • Steephan T., S/O V. Thomson, Promod Bhavan, Punnakkunnu, Mylamoodu, Aruvikkara P.O., Trivandrum
  • Suresh S., S/O Soman.K., Thottathil Mele Puthen Veedu, Cheriyakonni P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • T.S. Radhakrishnan Nair, S/O Thankappan Nair, Mele Vettu Benglow, Ayira P.O.
  • Velayudhan Nair.S., HUT, Kachani P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • Labour Court, Kollam
  • Addl.R26 Basheer.K.M, S/O Muhammed K.M, Kuzhupillil House, Kaithakkad u Kara, Pattimattom.P.O., Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri C. Unnikrishnan, SC
  • • Sri Joseph John, SC
  • • Sri P. Benjamin Paul, SC

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Biju Balakrishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C).No.24345 of 2008) filed by the Kerala Water Authority challenges an Industrial Tribunal, Kollam award on an industrial dispute. The Tribunal’s award, though ex parte in terms of notice, went into merits and held that the workers, engaged through a contractor and later absorbed by the Water Authority, were liable to be regularised. The Labour Court had earlier ordered regularisation, a position that prompted the Water Authority to seek judicial review. The court notes the Water Authority's absence and serious laches in its defense, while recognizing the Water Authority’s public-institution status and the need to protect public interest. The judgment cites the Supreme Court’s discussion of absorption of contract labour under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, specifically in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, to frame the legal landscape. It ultimately directs reconsideration of the award with substantial costs to the workers, on the condition that the Water Authority bears costs (Rs. 2,40,000) and that the Tribunal proceed promptly (appear on 18/12/2017 and decide by 31/3/2018). While providing an opportunity to reconsider, the court clarifies that workers’ services shall not be terminated pending Tribunal decision, if still engaged. The petition is disposed of accordingly with a direction to ensure counsel with labour-law expertise for the Water Authority’s defense in future proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Contract Labour (Regularisation & Abolition) Act, 1970Industrial Disputes Act, Fifth Schedule, Clause 10

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Substantial justice demands an opportunity be given.
  • State Instrumentality and public interest.
  • Laches and lapses as a legal principle.
  • Absorption/regularisation of contract labour under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Kerala Water Authority contends that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal Kollam was ex parte and merits were considered despite lack of proper representations. It highlights that absorption/regularisation of contract labour involves nuanced application of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Industrial Disputes Act. The Authority emphasizes its status as a State Instrumentality, the need to protect public interest, and the necessity of proper legal argument and skilled labour-law representation. It urges reconsideration of the award with conditions, including costs, given nine years elapsed since the events. The authority suggests that absent defense and procedural lapses warranted setting aside the award and remitting the matter for fresh adjudication, ensuring an opportunity to present a complete case under proper legal scrutiny.

Contentions of Respondents

The workers (respondents) seek regularisation of their service, arguing that they were engaged through a contractor and subsequently absorbed by the Water Authority; they rely on developments in case law on absorption under the CLRA Act and the Labour Court’s award for regularisation. They stress the need to implement an order that recognizes their continuous service and the rights accruing from regularisation, pressing for timely disposal and protection of workers’ interests. They highlight the ex parte nature of the Tribunal’s award and the necessity to ensure fair hearing and protection of workers’ interests in accordance with the relevant statutes.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others(2001) 7 SCC 1PositiveCited by the court to illustrate the legal framework and possibility of contracting labour absorption under the CLRA Act; used to support the consideration of absorption in regularisation disputes.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against The Managing Director Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram v. S. John and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/21ST ASWINA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 24345 of 2008 (W)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-------------** ## **THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA SRI.JOSEPH JOHN, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-------------1. S.JOHN., ELLUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, VAMPANNUR, ARUVIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2. R.UNNI, UJITHA BHAVAN, VAMPANNUR, ARUVIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **3. M.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, PANGAYIL VEEDU, KADAMPANADU, CHERIYAKONNI P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **4. M.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, THOTTARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERIYAKONNI P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **5. M.SATHI, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VAMPANNUR, ARUVIKKARA P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **6. V.SURENDRAN, KATTUKULATHIL VEEDU, KARUMOOLA VAMPANNUR, ARUVIKKARA P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **7. M.GOPALAKRISHNAN, THOTTARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KADAMPANADU,, CHERIYAKONNI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **8. S.PREMAN, VAZHUTTUTHADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, VALIYARA, VELLANADU P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **WP(C).No. 24345 of 2008 (W)** ## **----------------------------** **9. S.AUGUSTINE, VILAYIL VEEDU, VAMPANNUR, ARUVIKKARA P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **10. N.JAYAN, KARUMTHOTTATHU KUZHIVILA VEEDU, VEMPANNUR, ARUVIKKARA P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **11. M.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, KUNNIL VEEDU, KADAMPANADU, CHERIYAKONNI P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **12. D.RAJENDRAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, VEMPANNUR, ARUVIKKARA P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **13. DILEEPKUMAR P.J., S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, PLAVILA PUTHEN, VEEDU, VEMPANNUR, ARUVIKKARA P.O.** **14. ASOKA KUMAR.G., S/O.GOPALAN.M., ALARATHALA MELE PUTHENVEEDU,, PERUMPUZHUTHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA.** **15. AJITH KUMAR G., S/O.K.KRISHNAN NAIR, GEEEN VALLEY, VEMPANNUR, ARUVIKKARA P.O.** **16. J.KUMAR BINU, S/O.JOHNSON, CHILLUMVILA, VENMIZHAVU VEEDU, THIRUPPURAM P.O.,, NEYYATTINKARA.** **17. MOHANAN NAIR.G., S/O.S.GOPALA PILLAI, RADHA BHAVAN, VEMPANNOOR, ARUVIKKARA P.O.** **18. PRASANTH M., S/O.MOHANAN, PLAVILA MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, VEMPANNOOR,, ARUVIKKARA P.O.** **19. T.BAIJU, S/O.J.TITUS, BIJU BHAVAN, KALKUZHI, MANCHA P.O. NEDUMANGADU.** **20. RATHEESH KUMAR.O., S/O.B.OMANA, MELEVILAKATHU VEEDU, THAMALAM,, POOJAPPURA P.O., TRIVANDRUM.** **21. STEEPHAN T., S/O.V.THOMSON, PROMOD BHAVAN, PUNNAKUNNU, MYLAMOODU,, ARUVIKKARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM.** **22. SURESH S., S/O.SOMAN.K., THOTTATHIL MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERIYAKONNI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **23. T.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, MELE VETTU BENGLOW,, AYIRA P.O.** ## **WP(C).No. 24345 of 2008 (W)** **----------------------------** ## **24. VELAYUDHAN NAIR.S., HUT, KACHANI P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **25. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.** ***ADDL.R26 IMPLEADED** **---------------------------------** ***ADDL.26 BASHEER. K.M, S/O. MUHAMMED .K.M., KUZHUPPILLIL HOUSE, KAITHAKKADU KARA, PATTIMATTOM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ***ADDL.26 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 3.4.09 IN IA 4042/09** **R1 TO R21 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN ADDL.R26 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sdr/-** ## **WP(C).No. 24345 of 2008 (W)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **--------------** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **--------------------------------------** **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS DTD. 24.02.2002 BEFORE THE GOVT. OF KERALA** **EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS DT. 26.02.2002 BEFORE THE GOVT. OF KERALA** **EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 3546/03/LBR DT. 6.11.2003** **EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DT. 14.09.2004 FIELD BY THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE WORKMEN BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT** **EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FIELD BY THE MANAGEMENT** **EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 7.2.2008 IN I.D. NO. 1/2004 OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM** **EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 33162/F3/87/LAD DT. 20.11.92 WAS ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA TO M.D. KWA, CLARIFYING THAT I.D. ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES OF THE KWA NOW WORKING OR DISENGAGED** **EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 25.10.94 IN O P NO. 12454/93 AND C. C. NO. 115/91 ETC** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS** **--------------------------------------** **EXT.R1(A) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DUTIES OF EMPLOYEES REGULATION 1999 OF THE PETITIONER** **EXT.R2(A) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ABI-114/2008, DT. 07.09.2012 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION ARUVIKKARA** **/TRUE COPY/** **PA TO JUDGE** **sdr/-** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.** ========================= ## **W.P.(C).No.24345/2008** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** 1. This writ petition is filed by the Kerala Water Authority challenging an award passed in an industrial dispute by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. As seen from para.7 of the award, this award was passed _ex parte_ . However, the Tribunal had gone into the merits of the matter and held that the workers in question is liable to be absorbed in the service of the Water Authority and ordered regularisation. 2. Admittedly, the workers were initially engaged with the Water Authority through a contractor. According to the workers, the period of contract was over on 26/1/1999. Thereafter, the workers are engaged continuously by the Water Authority. It appears that immediately after the period of contract was over, the workers demanded regularisation. As seen from the various proceedings, ``` WPC 24345/2008 ``` ## **-:2:-** they approached this Court as well as the Government demanding regularisation. Taking note of the nature of the engagement, the Labour Court ordered regularisation. It is not discernible from the impugned order whether the Labour Court had considered the impact of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regularisation & Abolition) Act, 1970, while passing the order. 3. In fact, in detail the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered various provisions of the above Act for the purpose of absorbing workers engaged through contract labour. {See **Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others** [ **(2001) 7 SCC 1]}.** It is also not clear whether the Tribunal considered the provisions of “unfair labour practices” particularly, clause 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. The legal position has to be considered for ordering regularisation. The facts as of now would show that they were engaged by the Water Authority; the period, and in what manner they will have to be considered while ordering regularisation. As the matters stand now, the Water Authority remained absent. There are serious laches and lapses on the part of the Water Authority. The Water Authority must note ## **`WPC 24345/2008`** ## **-:3:-** that they are the State Instrumentality and they have to protect public interest as well. While engaging the counsel to defend them they must ensure that those who have expertise in the field in labour law alone be engaged as their counsel. Unfortunately, as seen from the proceedings, the Water Authority was not serious enough in defending before the Tribunal. Anyhow, more than nine years have lapsed before this Court. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008. Substantial justice demands an opportunity should be given to the Water Authority. At the same time, the fate of all these workers cannot be overlooked. Reconsideration, therefore, should be based on payment of costs. There are altogether 24 workers. Therefore, this Court is of the view that on payment of cost of Rs.2,40,000/- the impugned award has to be set aside for reconsideration. The costs of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and forty thousand only) shall be paid to the workers through the counsel appearing before this Court for them on or before 15/12/2017. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 18/12/2017. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter before 31/3/2018. If the workers are still engaged by the Water ## **`WPC 24345/2008`** ## **-:4:-** Authority, certainly, their services shall not terminated till a decision is taken by the Industrial Tribunal. 4. In this matter, a third party got impleaded as an additional respondent No.26, who was included in the PSC list, staking claim for the post in which these workers were engaged. Anyhow, the list has expired. In fact, this Court in another writ petition, W.P.(C). No.494/2009 filed by some of the candidates observed as follows: - “Therefore, this Court is of the view that nothing further survives in the writ petition. However, if any of the petitioners has been advised based on the ranked list, he/she shall be free to hold the post in accordance with law. Since no other relief can be given to the petitioners, the writ petition is closed.” Therefore, that observation will continue to bind the Water Authority. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE** ms