V. Sivaprasad v. Cochin Shipyard Limited (WP(C).No. 21681 of 2006 (F))

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2015-12-18
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. No Costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V. Sivaprasad

Respondents

Cochin Shipyard Limited
Executive Director (ACP), Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K.G. Anil Babu

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. M. Pathrose Matthai (Sr.)
• Sri. Rony J. Pallath

Case Synopsis & Summary

V. Sivaprasad, appointed as a contract worker by Cochin Shipyard Limited on 9 July 1992, challenged the denial of pay revision for the period during which he remained on the Company’s rolls and also sought leave encashment under Ext. P12. He was in service until 31 December 1995, when he was sent out of service. He filed O.P. No. 948/1996 and obtained an interim stay, enabling him to continue from 1 January 1996 to 11 July 2000, though the original petition was eventually dismissed (as per Ext. R1(c)). He contends that, since he stayed on the Company’s rolls during the contract period and was remunerated in the last drawn pay scale, he should be entitled to pay revision applicable to regular employees for the period of the contract and interim continuance. He also seeks leave encashment in line with Ext. P12. The respondents contend that pay revision is a privilege available only to regular employees and that leave encashment is available only to those on regular employment at the time of superannuation; as the petitioner was a contract employee, he cannot claim these benefits. The court distinguishes Ext. P8, a Division Bench decision, noting the facts differ and interim continuance was court-ordered, not company-driven. It also cites Abhimanyoo Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 17 SCC 73 to buttress its reasoning. Ultimately, the writ petition is dismissed with no costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that he remained on the Company's rolls from 9 July 1992 to 11 July 2000 under interim relief and that pay revision applicable to regular employees should extend to the period of the contract/interim continuation. He relies on Ext. P8 (Division Bench) which he argues supports extending pay scales for the contract period, and seeks leave encashment as per Ext. P12, arguing it forms part of the benefits due to workers on the Company’s rolls. He also cites Abhimanyoo Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh to buttress the equitable view that benefits accruing during contractual service should be recognized.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents submit that pay revision is available only to regular employees and that leave encashment is a privilege granted only to those in regular employment at the time of superannuation. They argue Ext. P8 is distinguishable on its facts; here, continued engagement after 1995 was due to interim court orders rather than the Company’s policy, and there is no entitlement to pay revision for periods beyond the contract termination. They contend that the petitioner never earned regular status or superannuation benefits, and thus cannot claim leave encashment.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Abhimanyoo Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another	2008 (17) SCC 73	Positive	Cited by the court to buttress the finding that benefits accruing during contractual/ interim periods can influence entitlement debates and support the court’s reasoning on interim continuance and pay scales.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 21681 of 2006 (F)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **--------------------** **V.SIVAPRASAD, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **(ASSISTANT VIGILANCE OFFICER, TERMINATED, COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, COCHIN)** **BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **-------------------------** ## **1. THE COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED, COCHIN-15, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.** ## **2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ACP),** **COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD., COCHIN-15.** **R1& R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) R1& R2 BY ADV. SRI.RONY J.PALLATH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 21681 of 2006 (F)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** - **P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.SEC/28/36/90 DATED 3.7.1992** - **P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PF/3100 DATED 9.7.1992** - **P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.1458/96 DATED 16.01.1996** - **P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.10350/96 IN O.P. NO.948/96 DATED 2.4.1996** - **P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 31873/2000 DATED 14.11.2000** - **P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2000** - **P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PF 3100 DATED 14.12.2000** - **P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. 1072/04 DATED 18.6.2004** - **P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO.2245/01 DATED 5.4.2006** - **P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.6.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **P11: TRUE COPYOF THE LETTER NO.PERL/4(83)90 DATED 11.7.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE SANCTION SLIP ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23.3.2000** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** - **R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 3.7.1995 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR EXTENSION OF 6 MONTHS** - **R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.1.1996 REJECTING THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER** - **R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. NO.948/996 DATED 11.7.2000** - **R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PAY REVISION ORDER NO.PERL/21(10)/2000- DATED 7.2.2000** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **JJJ** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 21681 of 2006 (F) -----------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of December, 2015 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is before this court challenging the denial of pay revision for a certain period in which he was continued in the employment of the respondent Company and also claims leave encashment as per Ext.P12. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a contract worker as per Ext.P2 dated 9.7.1992. The petitioner is said to have continued in the contract employment up to 31.12.1995, when he was sent out of service. The petitioner filed O.P. No.948/1996, in which there was an interim stay granted. The petitioner, in the said original petition, claimed that he is entitled to be ## **W.P.(C) No. 21681/2006** **-2-** regularised and continued in employment. The petitioner, on the basis of the interim order passed in the above writ petition, continued from 1.1.1996 to 11.7.2000; on which later date the original petition was dismissed by Ext.R1(c). The petitioner's claim for regularisation and continuance in employment were rejected. The petitioner was, immediately thereafter, terminated from service from 12.7.2000. 3. The petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P8, would contend that the petitioner being in the rolls of the Company from 9.7.1992 to 11.7.2000; would be entitled to any pay revision which the Company's employees were entitled to. It is an admitted position that the petitioner's pay was revised, in accordance with the revision applicable to the employees, when he continued on contract employment as permitted by the ## **W.P.(C) No. 21681/2006** **-3-** Company between 9.7.1992 and 31.12.1995. What the petitioner now claims is similar benefits when he was continued by virtue of the interim order in the writ petition which was eventually dismissed. The petitioner's continuance in the Company from 1.1.1996 was only based on an interim order and the original petition eventually was rejected as per Ext.R1(c). Hence, the petitioner's continuance, though remunerated by the Company in accordance with the last pay drawn, as on the date of termination of his contract no revisions were employment, granted subsequently. 4. This Court finds a clear distinction from the facts in Ext.P8. Therein, a person was appointed in a regular scale of pay and continued on contract employment was terminated. The claim raised was for ## **W.P.(C) No. 21681/2006** **-4-** the revision of pay to be made applicable to the said contract employee, as was made applicable to the regular employees. This has been granted to the petitioner when he validly continued in employment for the period in which the contract was valid. The continuance after the contract period was only on the basis of the interim order in the writ petition in which he claimed regularisation. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Ext:P-8, found that when a person was in the rolls of the company, but subsequently terminated from service, for any reason what so ever, was eligible to get their pay scales revised. This would apply only till the date on which the petitioner was terminated from the contract employment i.e. on 31.12.1995. The continuance thereafter was not at the will of the company, but on ## **W.P.(C) No. 21681/2006** **-5-** the basis of the interim order passed by this Court. When the original petition itself, in which the interim order was passed, stood rejected, there is no question of the petitioner being given any benefits during the period in which he was continued. Reference can be made, to buttress the above finding, to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Abhimanyoo Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another - 2008 (17) SCC 73** . 6. The further contention is with respect to the leave encashment applicable to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that such leave encashment benefits can be only granted to those persons in regular employment of the Company and only at the time of superannuation. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is only a ## **W.P.(C) No. 21681/2006** **-6-** contract employee and there is no question of superannuation. The petitioner would not hence be entitled to that relief also. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 18/12/15