The petitioner, who is presently engaged as Plant Attender on contract basis in the Kannur Diary of the Malabar Regional Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., the respondent herein, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to regularise him in the post of Plant Attender. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs, including a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent not to replace him with other temporary employees.

2. On 31.1.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Society sought time to get instructions. It was ordered that status quo as on that date shall be maintained for a period of one week. The said interim order, was extended by one month on 2.2.2018.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent raising various contentions, including the maintainability of this writ petition. The respondent would also contend that the candidates who are engaged on fixed period contract through Employment Exchange are engaged only for terms of six months or one year. Further, the maximum duration of such engagements put together for a candidate is fixed as four years or till permanent appointment is made, whichever is earlier, as a matter of policy. The petitioner, who had completed the maximum duration of four years of such engagements put together on 31.1.2018, cannot claim regularisation or seek continuance till the appointment of a permanent employee.

4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit contending that the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent does not stipulate the maximum duration of four years, as contended in the counter affidavit. Even if such a policy is in existence, it is not legally valid and binding on the petitioner as it is against the principles to be followed in the matter of employment.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Society.

6. The petitioner was initially engaged as Plant Attender in the Kannur Diary of the respondent Society for a period of six months from the date of joining, by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 16.1.2014. Based on Ext.P1, the petitioner joined duty on 18.1.2014. On expiry of the period of contract, the petitioner was terminated on 17.7.2014, vide Ext.P2 proceedings. Thereafter, he was engaged for another period of six months on daily rated basis by Ext.P3 proceedings dated 22.7.2014. Ext.P3 was followed by Ext.R1(b) proceedings dated 22.1.2015, Ext.R1(c) proceedings dated 27.1.2016 and Ext.R1(d) proceedings dated 29.7.2016, whereby he was engaged on daily rated basis for a period of six months under each contract, after a break of two or three days. Later, the petitioner was engaged for a period of one year on daily rated basis by Ext.R1(e) proceedings dated 31.1.2017.

7. According to the petitioner, though he is working on contract basis, he is being paid all the benefits of a regular employee, such as EPF, ESI, etc. The extension of the engagement of the petitioner on several occasions itself proves that he is efficient and capable of doing the work and as such, he is entitled for regularisation. The petitioner made several requests for regularisation, which were not considered by the respondent for one reason or another. Now the respondent is trying to terminate the petitioner from the post of Plant Attender, in order to accommodate another temporary employee, which is illegal and arbitrary, since a temporary employee can only be replaced by a permanent employee. Since no steps have been taken by the respondent to appoint a permanent employee, the petitioner is entitled to continue as Plant Attender till a permanent employee is appointed to that post.

8. The respondent would contend that they are follow