The issue involved in all these petitions is in respect of the alleged rights of the petitioners to continue in service after the expiry of the contract engagement of 180 days, till regular hands join duty. Some of the petitioners are Physically Handicapped persons and seek to establish their right with reference to this aspect as well. In some cases, a reference is made to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act and the Kerala Rules 2000, thereunder. Reference is made to the parties and events as given in W.P.(C) 20321 of 2012.

2. The petitioners were sponsored through the concerned Employment Exchange and were appointed as Helpers (Labelling) for a period of 180 days in the respondent Corporation. Ext. P2 is the appointment order issued by the Corporation, wherein the nature of engagement has been shown as on 'daily wage basis'; that the tenure is only for a maximum period of 180 days; that the said appointment shall never be a basis for claiming regular appointment and that the said appointment was liable to be terminated as and when regular hands reported for duty or as and when the Corporation decided that no more engagement was necessary.

3. Petitioners 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) 20321 of 2012, the second petitioner in W.P.(C) 20381 of 2012 , the first petitioner in W.P.(C) 20389 of 2012 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) 21800 of 2012 are stated as Physically Handicapped persons. The tenure of appointment in all the cases, except W.P.(C) 25541 of 2012, has expired; whereas the petitioners in W.P.(C) 25541 of 2012 still continue in service by virtue of Ext. P1 appointment order dated 23.08.2012, which will come to an end only by March, 2013. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that, though they were initially appointed only for a period of '180' days as sponsored through Employment Exchange, they are entitled to continue, since the requirement of the Corporation has not come to an end and further when they are proceeding with steps to recruit another set of temporary hands, after replacing persons like the petitioners, which is not correct or sustainable. It is also contended that engagement of the petitioners was as Helpers (Labelling) and this duty cannot be discharged by the existing workers in the Corporation, as the nature of the work involved is a perennial one, particularly in view of the duty that is being undertaken by the Corporation in procuring and dispensing the Indian Made Foreign Liquor to the customers in the State of Kerala. It is also stated that there is no complaint whatsoever with regard to the work performed by the petitioners and that they came to be sponsored and appointed by virtue of their seniority in registration with the Employment Exchange and also by virtue of their better credentials. The petitioners contend that they are either Physically Handicapped persons or widows/unmarried women/aged persons and that termination of their service, merely for the reason that the tenure of 'six' months was over, is not correct or sustainable. It is also the contention of the petitioners, particularly the Physically Handicapped persons that they are entitled to be treated differently, by virtue of the provisions of 'The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995' and that, sending them out immediately on completion of '180' days, is rather cruel and contrary to the scheme of the enactment. All the petitioners rely on the verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide Ext.P7 judgment in W.A. 1687 of 2011 dated 04.11.2011, whereby the petitioner therein was permitted to be engaged even after the tenure of 180 days, with one day's break and that the petitioners are also entitled to have similar relief.

4. The claim of the petitioners is sought to be rebutted by the first respondent Corporation (who has filed a detailed counter affidavit) pointing out tha