Kerala High Court
WP(C)/14884/2025 of SHAJI.S Vs REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), on 10 April 2025
14884 OF 2025 : 1 : 2025:KER:31435 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 14884 OF 2025 PETITIONERS: 1 SHAJI.S, AGED 55 YEARS S/O SUNDARESAN NAIR N, VAISHAKAM, ELAMPA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14884 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
SHAJI.S, AGED 55 YEARS
S/O SUNDARESAN NAIR N, VAISHAKAM, ELAMPA P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695103
SREEKANDAN NAIR.K., AGED 58 YEARS
S/O KUTTAN PILLAI, CHIPPY, EDATHARA,
ANANDESWARAM, CHEMPAZHANTHI P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695587
PRADEEP, AGED 53 YEARS
S/O CHANDRASEKHARA NAIR, PRANAVAM, ETRA 84, EANIKKARA, KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695564
STANLEY.A., AGED 57 YEARS
S/O AROGYAM, SHIMILY SADANAM,
CHAMPANADA HOUSE, PULLUVILA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695526
BINU KUMAR.B., AGED 57 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNAN, NEERAZHY LANE, PSC NAGAR, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
SATHEESH KUMAR.B., AGED 56 YEARS
S/O R.BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, KUNDAYATHUKONATH
VEEDU, CHERIYAKONNI P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
SATHEESH KUMAR.R, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR, PAINGALI VEEDU,
BHAGAVATHY NADA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501
RAVIKUMAR.T, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O R.THANKKAPPAN PILLAI, AISHWARYA,
VAYYANAM P.O., AYOOR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691533
SREEKUMARAN NAIR.S., AGED 59 YEARS
S/O SIVARAMAN PILLAI, AYYAPPA NILAYAM,
VALAMCODE, PALLICHAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
S.NATESH KUMAR,AGED 58 YEARS
S/O SANKARA PILLAI, THANKAM, KULASEKHARAM, KODUNGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
BABU.C, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O CHAKRAPANI, ROHINI, VADAKARA NAGAR,
ARAYALLOOR, THIRUMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006
MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.M, AGED 57 YEARS
, S/O MADHAVAN NAIR, TC 64/608(1),
THIRUVATHIRA, THOTTATHU VILLA, KARUMAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
SURENDRAN.G, AGED 53 YEARS
S/O GEORGE, PLANKALA VILLA HOUSE,
VADOORKONAM, AYRA P.O., PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR.N.,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, MELEKAIPPILLIL VEEDU, MUNDELA P.O., VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695543
UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR.A.,AGED 53 YEARS
S/O APPUKUTTAN NAIR, SINDHOORAM,
KIDANGUMAL, VELIYANNOOR P.O., VELLANAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695543
JOY.C.PILLAI, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O S.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI,
VISHNU VILASOM, PAKALKURI P.O., PALLICHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695604
P.ANILKUMAR,AGED 56 YEARS
M/O KRISHKUMARI, KRISHNAVENI,
SAPTHAPURAM, PERAYAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
S.RAJAN, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O SUKUMARAN, SINDHU BHAVAN, VATTAVILA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695042
LALUKUMAR.G.K., AGED 50 YEARS
S/O K KRISHNAPILLAI, THIRUVATHIRA,
KAITHOORKONAM, EDAKODE, NEMOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
RAJU.T., AGED 56 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN, NIJA NIVAS,
OTTAVATTOM JUNCTION, ELAMPAL P.O.,
PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691322
SURESH.K.,AGED 55 YEARS
S/O A KRISHNAN KUTTY, KANJIRAMNINNAKARICHAL, PULLUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695576
S.AMBIKA RAJAN, AGED 58 YEARS
W/O RAJAN PILLAI, AISHWARYA BHAVAN, THONNAKKAL
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695317
PADMAKUMARY.S., AGED 52 YEARS
W/O ANIL KUMAR, CHANDRODAYAM, SREEKANTH NAGAR, IRUPPUKUZHY, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
L.GEETHA, AGED 58 YEARS
W/O RAJEDRAN G, SANGEETHAM, MRAP1,
KANJIRAMPARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695030
BAIJU.K.S., AGED 58 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN, VEGAMVILAKOM, MANCHADIMOODU, VATTIYOORKKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
SADASIVAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O MADHAVAN PILLAI, MAMBAZHAKKARA,
PERUMPAZHATHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695126
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL),
RAMANILAYAM, TC 25/3453, UPPALAM ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
SREE CHITHIRA THIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR., PIN - 695011
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN, NEW MEHRAULI ROAD,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110016
BY ADV Sajith Kumar V.,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are Ex-service men/retirees from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and are presently working as security guards with the 2nd respondent on contract basis through an agency which deals with supply of security guards. According to the petitioners, as per Exts.P3 and P4 settlements entered into by the 2nd respondent and the Trade Unions, the security guards are allowed to continue till the age of 60 years. It is stated that Exts.P3 and P4 settlements are still in force. While so, the 2nd respondent had invited bid for engaging security agencies for the coming year. Ext.P5 is the bid document and clause 7(4) of the same reads as follows: “7.Buyer Added Bid Specific ATC
4. The age limit of the contract security guards deployed should be upto 60 years. The service provider should ensure timely replacement of security guards exceeding 60 years during the contract period. The security guards should be deployed by the service provider in such a way that he/she should not be worked in the Institute for a period more than 5 years under any agency.” The petitioners state that by the aforesaid clause, a restriction has been imposed by the 2nd respondent by which the maximum period of service of a security guard under any agency is limited to 5 years. This according to the petitioners is violative of Exts.P3 and P4 settlements. The petitioners apprehend that by virtue of the said clause in the bid document, once an agreement is entered into by the 2nd respondent with a new agency, the service of the petitioners will be terminated. The petitioners have accordingly approached the 1st respondent-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), highlighting their grievances. The 1st respondent, considering the grievances raised by the petitioners has issued Ext.P6 communication to the 2nd respondent. The relevant portion of the communication reads as follows: “The General Secretary of Kerala
State
Security
& Housekeeping Staff Association brought to the notice of the undersigned that one of the terms of tender stipulates that 'contract workers shall not be employed for more than 5 years in your establishment
under
various contractors'. This clause of your tender is apprehended violation against the MOS dt.13.06.2024 and also against the principles of CL(R&A) Act 1970 wherein the PE shall not interfere in the terms and conditions of employment of contract labours. In the light of the above, if implemented the above condition, it will become violation of MOS dt.13.06.2024 which will attract action under Sec 29 of the ID Act,1947 and violations under CL(R&A) Act, 1970. In view of the above you are hereby advised to reconsider the above clause of your tender.”
2. The petitioners have accordingly, filed this writ petition to quash clause No.7(4) in Ext.P5 bid document to the extent it restricts the service of security personnel under different agency to five years contrary to Ext.P4 settlement.
3. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that pursuant to Ext.P6, Ext.R2(a) reply has been submitted by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. It is contended that there is no violation of Exts.P3 and P4 settlements and that the conditions in Ext.P4 settlement will not apply to fresh bids.
4. Since the 2nd respondent has submitted Ext.R2(a) reply to Ext.P6 before the 1st respondent, I am of the view that the grievances raised by the petitioners in this writ petition can be considered by the 1st respondent with notice to the petitioners in a representative capacity and the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent shall take a decision on the
issue after hearing the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. A decision as above shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time a decision is taken, Ext.P5 shall not be finalised. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB
APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1(Series) TRUE COPY OF THE WAGE SLIPS OF PETITIONER NOS.3, 10, 16 AND 17 FROM DECEMBER 2021 TO OCTOBER 2023 WHILE WORKING WITH DELTA SECURITY SERVICES DATED NIL Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.25590/2019 DATED 29.05.2019 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT ARRIVED BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE UNION ALONG WITH BRANCH MANAGER OF THE THEN CONTRACTOR DATED 10.10.2019 WITH LEGIBLE COPY Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.06.2024 BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND UNION OF WORKERS WITH LEGIBLE COPY Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BID DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.01.2025 Exhibit P 6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P AND A.1/SCTIMST/13/2025, DATED 19.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT