The services of government servants in institutions charged with sovereign functions, including the judiciary, are not governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the dismissal of OP. No. 7064 of 1983 by the judgment dated 18-8-1983 holding that benefit contemplated in Ext. P1 Circular No. 119890/SDI/82/GAD dated 18-4-1983 did not extend to them, who were Lower Division Typists in the Munsiff's Court, Haripad.

2. In Umayammal v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT. 829) the Full Bench of this Court held that in regard to institutions charged with sovereign functions which included judiciary, the services of the Government servants would not be governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. We find, therefore, no force in the contention that the service of the petitioners could not have been terminated except in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The counsel for the petitioners Sri Sadananda Prabhu, however, advanced a new line of reasoning in support of his argument that the services of the petitioners could not have been terminated unless a candidate selected and advised by the Public Service Commission reported for duty. According to him the appellants' appointment not being from service, but from outside, by direct recruitment, the concerned proviso to R.9(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (the Rules) which lays down that temporary appointments should not be for a period exceeding 180 days, would not be applicable to them. Admittedly the appointments were under R.9(a) (i) of the Rules, which, as already noticed, provided inter alia that such appointment shall not be for more than 180 days. Explanation (iii) to Note (3) of R.9(a) (i) reads as follows:

"A person appointed under clause (i) shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the said rules."

It is placing reliance on this Explanation referred to above that Sri Prabhu argued that until and unless a person advised by the Public Service Commission reported for duty, the petitioners' service, even after the period of 180 days, for which period alone, as per the appointment orders, they were appointed, could not have been terminated. We do not think that that Explanation is capable of yielding any such meaning. It is true that a person appointed under clause (i) shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or an approved candidate qualified to hold the post; that does not, however, mean that unless such candidate reports for duty, the service of the temporary hand employed to meet the emergency and as a stop-gap arrangement, could not be terminated even after the lapse of the period for which he or she was appointed in terms of the appointment order issued to him or her under R.9(a) (i) of the Rules. In this view the writ appeal is without merit, and is, accordingly, dismissed.