AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—The issue relating to the termination of the Appellants from the service of the Kerala Water Authority was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ernakulam in terms of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Reference was registered as ID No. 36/96 and by Ext.P9 award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workers as operators with continuity of service, but without any back wages or monetary benefits. The Respondents in this appeal challenged the award before this Court by filing WP(C) No. 20784/2006. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the award. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the appeal is filed. The main reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge is that, in Ext.P7 judgment in OP No. 12454/93, a Division Bench of this Court has already held that the Appellants are not entitled to continue in the service of the 1st Respondent.
We have gone through Ext.P7 judgment which shows that the Appellants had sought regularization in service claiming the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority 1990(2) KLT 673. This claim of the Appellants was negative and this Court held that the Appellants are not entitled for continuance or regularization. Once it has been so held, even if their services have been terminated by the Respondents as claimed in the writ appeal, the Labour Court could not have answered the reference in favour of the Appellants and directed their reinstatement in service. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal.
Writ appeal fails and it is dismissed.