Judgments > Case Number >
Letter Patent Appeal
L.P.A. No. 1071 of 2011 - Management of Kerala House Vs. Sanjay Kumar, 2012 (2) KLT SN 89 (C.No. 83)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Head Note:-
Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 - Section 4 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Chapter VA - Any provisions regarding recruitment and conditions of service, framed by the State Govt. would govern the service of its employees and not the provisions of Chapter VA or other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act regulating the conditions of service.
Held:- A plain reading of Section 4 of the Act makes it clear that Chapter VA or other provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, is excluded by virtue of that provision. Instead, the appointment of any person to any public service or post in connection with the affairs of State of Kerala and conditions of service (including termination of service) is to be governed by the provisions of the said Act. It is manifest that the Act i.e. Kerala Public Services Act deals with recruitment and conditions of service and enables the Government to frame such rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala. Therefore, any provisions regarding recruitment and conditions of service, framed by the State Govt. would govern the service of its employees and not the provisions of Chapter VA or other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act regulating the conditions of service. That is made clear even in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which demonstrates that the State of Kerala was more concerned with benefit of protection of Chapter 5A of the I.D. Act to temporary or adhoc employees. It is stated that according to the rules in force in the State, temporary employees are allowed to continue in service for a period of 180 days and cannot claim re employment even if the vacancies continue to exist. The entire I.D. Act including the adjudication machinery is not excluded. It is only the provision of Chapter V A or other provisions of the I.D. Act regarding recruitment and conditions of service, which would not be applicable. Therefore, it cannot be held that the Labour Court would not have any jurisdiction at all in the matter. Of Course, when the matter is raised before the Industrial Adjudicator, in deciding the dispute, the provisions of Chapter VA of the Act shall not be taken into consideration. Likewise, any other provision of ID Act which is contrary to the service conditions framed by the State Government will not be applied. The Labour Court, while deciding the validity of termination, shall be governed by the regulations or rules made by the State of Kerala. Reading otherwise would mean that there would not be any adjudicatory machinery available to the workmen. Matter would have been different if the such adjudicatory machinery was provided under the Kerala Service Act. However, as mentioned above, that Act has limited scope as it only enables the government to prescribe rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of its employees.
1-2 of 2