An interim order should not effectively grant the main relief sought in a writ petition, as it undermines the judicial process.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short, KSRTC) notified a referendum in their services and approached the competent Authority of the Labour Department to conduct it leading to the publication of a draft voters list by them.

2. The above list was challenged by certain persons before this Court through WP(C) No.15262/2025, which was disposed of through judgment dated 10/4/2025, with the following observations and directions:-

“If the name of the workman is left out from the draft voter's list prepared by the Returning Officer, he can make individual objection before the Returning Officer within the time stipulated in the election notification. If the members of the petitioner Union are aggrieved by the draft voters' list published, they are free to submit objection before the Returning Officer within the time provided in the election notification.

Leaving open the said right and without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of.”

3. In obedience to the directions and adverting to the objections of certain individuals the Returning Officer - who is of the rank of Deputy Additional Labour Commissioner - issued Ext.P5 order, directing that all ‘Badali’ Workers (Substitute Workers), who have completed 120 days of service within a period of one year prior to the date of notification, be also included in the Final Voters List.

4. It transpires that the KSRTC, in ostensible compliance with Ext.P5, produced a Voters List before the Returning Officer, but without including any ‘Badali’ Workers.

5. This caused the Returning Officer to issue Ext.P8 order, recording that since the KSRTC did not comply with his earlier order, the conduct of the referendum becomes untenable, particularly since they have offered no valid Final Voters List in in terms of law.

6. The aforesaid two orders, namely Exts.P5 and P8, were challenged by the Kerala State Road Transport Employees Welfare Association and others, filing WP(C) No.16443/2025; and, in it, a learned Judge of this Court issued the impugned order.

7. Since the above cited Appeals carry challenge against the same order, we propose to dispose them of jointly through this judgment.

8. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has stayed Ext.P8 order and has directed the Returning Officer to publish the Voters’ List, including only regular employees of the KSRTC and not the ‘Badali’ Workers.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants in these cases, namely Sri.Liju V. Stephen in W.A.826/2025; and Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar in W.A.No.827/2025, argued that the impugned order effectively allows the Writ Petition itself, since the main prayer therein has been now granted through an interim order, which is impermissible in law. They argued that, when the Returning Officer issued Ext.P5 order, it was fully accepted and complied with by the KSRTC, producing a Final Voters’ List before him, however, in blatant contravention of his directions therein; and hence, that he had no other option, but to issue Ext.P8. They contended that, when the learned Single Judge stayed Ext.P8 order at the stage of admission of the Writ Petition and allowed the referendum to continue based on the Final Voters’ List prepared by the KSRTC in violation of Ext.P5 order, nothing would remain for consideration in the Writ Petition, since all the reliefs sought for therein has been granted. They thus prayed that these Appeals be allowed.

10. However, in refutation, Sri.Deepu Thankan – learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, submitted that Ext.P5 is an illegal order; but, in the same breath conceded that his client had complied with the same, producing the Final Voters’ List before the Returning Officer. He explained that, to his instructions as of now, there are no ‘Badali’ Workers who are eligible to vote as per the directions of the Returning Officer in Ext.P5; and that, even if there are any, they are not entitled to be included in the