AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
The respondents herein are stated to have been working as “Petty Contract Workers” and “Contract Line Workers” under the services of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB); and they moved the Government of Kerala, under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short “the ID Act”), seeking that an industrial dispute – qua the rejections of their claim for regularisations of the KSEB - be raised under the provisions of Section 10(1)(d) thereof; which was done by it.
The Industrial reference mentioned above, culminated in Ext.P1 Award, wherein, persons like the respondents were directed to be included in a seniority list; to be then subjected to a recruitment procedure and selection process for appointment against certain percentile of the existing vacancies in the services of the KSEB.
It is conceded that the directions in Ext.P1 Award have been fully complied with; but, on the allegation that the employees in question were not given their salary and other benefits from the date on which they have first entered the services of the KSEB, some of them approached this Court through WP(C) No.13933/21, which was disposed of, directing them to approach the learned Industrial Tribunal itself. However, in appeal by the workers, a learned Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.1032 of 2021, reversed the said direction and declared that the date of regularization would be 15.06.2005; with a concomitant order to the appellants herein to recalculate the pension of the appellants therein, as also to give them all other benefits as are legally permissible.
The respondents in this case filed the present writ petition seeking analogus reliefs as were granted to the petitioners in the Writ Appeal, in which the above judgment has been delivered by the learned Division Bench.
It is asserted by the learned counsel for the respondents - Sri.Harikumar, that both the matters were, in fact, filed almost simultaneously, but that only one among them had been disposed of as seen supra. He argued that the learned Single Judge, therefore, has delivered the impugned judgment, following the declarations in the aforementioned judgment in Writ Appeal No.1032 of 2021, correctly.
Sri.Raju Joseph, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Joseph Antony C – learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, on the contrary, argued that the factual circumstances involved in this case and the one noticed by the learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1032 of 2021, are different; and further that the said judgment is in error because, it had not taken into account any of the relevant facts. He contented that, in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge could not have followed the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1032 of 2021 and ought to have decided the matter on its merits, rather than in the manner it has done .
Sri.Harikumar – learned counsel for the respondents, however, countered the afore submissions, showing us that the petitioners in the two writ appeals are identically situated and are governed by Ext.P1 Award in the same manner. He pointed out to us that, the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1032 of 2021 was delivered by the learned Division Bench adverting to every germane fact; and then contended, rather vehemently, that the argument, that the said judgment is in error, can never be impelled by the appellants since an appeal against it before the Honourable Supreme Court was attempted through SLP Nos.17102 of 2024, but dismissed through the order dated 22.02.2024. He then added that, even after the afore Special Leave Petition was dismissed, the appellants filed a review petition against the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1032 of 2021, but that the same was also dismissed; against which there has been no appeal. He maintained that, in such circumstances, the judgment in writ appeal No.1032 of 2021 has become final; and hence that the learned Single Judge was without error in having followed, it being a binding precedent.
We have considered the afore rival submissions.
It is without contest that the writ petitioners in this case and the writ petitioners in the writ petition which culminated in the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1032 of 2021, were all “Petty Contractors Workers” or :Contract Line workers”; and that Ext.P1 Award of the Industrial Tribunal was in their favour.
The appellants were concededly obligated under Ext.P1 Award - which was challenged by the appellants before this Court, with both the learned Single bench and the learned Division Bench dismissing it; to be further tested before the Honourable Supreme Court, also to be rejected - to conduct a recruitment process and to select eligible among the “Petty Contract Workers” and “Contract Line Workers”. It is unequivocally admitted that the appellants had done so; but the surviving question was whether the so selected employees were entitled to have their date, of regularization reckoned from an earlier date, than it was actually done.
It is the afore specific question which has been answered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1032 of 2021 and this is beyond any contest.
The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, as noticed above, is that the said judgment is in error because, it had not taken into account relevant factual and other germane circumstances.
We are afraid that we cannot even countenance such an argument, particularly when the judgment was approved by the Honourable Supreme Court, dismissing the SLP filed against it; and when a subsequent review against it was also dismissed by this Court.
We are, therefore, without any doubt that the judgment in W.A.No.1032/2021 would apply to the case of the respondents herein, as has been correctly found by the learned Single Judge.
Axiomatically, we dismiss this Appeal, but without making any order as to costs.