Radhakrishnan, J.

Common questions arise for consideration in all these cases. Learned single Judge vide order dated 8th August 2005 referred these cases to the Division Bench to examine the question whether appointment to the post of Mazdoor would fall within the purview of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as Respects Certain Corporations and Companies) Act, 1970 (Act 9 of 1970) read with the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation by Corporations and Companies) Rules. 1971.

2. Learned Judge on the same day also disposed of OP. 5311 of 2003 quashing the award dated 4-10-2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad and directed the Industrial Tribunal to consider the claim of regularisation of the service of CLPW (Casual Labour Pool Workers) who had worked for not less than 200 days prior to 1.11.2000 afresh. Industrial tribunal was directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of the judgment is made available to the Tribunal. So far as the writ petitioners in all these cases are concerned the award has already been quashed by the learned Single Judge in OP.5311 of 2003 and therefore the only question posed for consideration is whether the post of Mazdoor would fall within the purview of public service commission.

3. Sri M.K. Damodaran who led the arguments submitted that Malabar Cements is a government company which has already been included within the purview of Act 9 of 1970 and therefore consultation with the P.S.C. is a pre requisite for effecting appointment to the post of Mazdoors. Counsel also submitted even if this post would not fall within the purview of Public Service Commission recruitment be confined only to those candidates who have been sponsored by Employment Exchange. Counsel referred to the provisions in the Employment Exchange. (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. Counsel referred to several decisions of Supreme Court as well as this court such as Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1, Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority, (1991) 1 SCC 28, Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, (1991) Suppl. (1) SCC 600, State of Kerala and Others V. Jyothi. S.S. & Others, 2002 (2) ILR 341. Sabu Kurian Vs. Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. 1999 (2) KLT 180 and submitted, in any view of the matter, since the persons represented by petitioners’ union are being engaged as casual labourers for over 10 to 15 years the respondent Government Company is bound to regularize them in service. Counsel also submitted, the steps taken by the company to fill up the post of Mazdoor through direct recruitment is illegal and would defeat the right of the members of the petitioners’ Union for regularisation in service. Counsel submitted, in any view of the matter since the question of regularisation of CLPW is pending consideration before the Industrial Tribunal no appointments be effected in the meanwhile. Identical is the contention raised by Advocate Sri. Thampan Thomas and others.

4. Sri. B.S. Krishnan, Senior counsel appearing for the Company contended that the post of Mazdoors will not come within the purview of the Public Service Commission and therefore the company is entitled to fill up the post through direct recruitment. Counsel submitted, the policy of the Governmetn is that all employees of individual corporations and companies, as defined in the Factories Act, and excluding persons employed in supervisory and managerial capacity, are to be recruited by the Public Service Commission. Counsel referred to a Government letter dated 14-8-1990 and the notification SRO No.145/71 containing the Rules issued under section 4 of Act 9 of 1970 and submitted that all employees of the individual corporations and companies excluding “workman” as defined in the Factories Act and excluding “Managerial” and supervisory personnel under the Industrial Dispu