Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
Manoj T.V., S/o Vasu - Appellant
Versus
The Director Of Municipalities - Respondents
WP(C) No. 29116 of 2018
Decided on : 13-08-2025
(A) Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 - Section 57 - Writ Petitions regarding absorption of contingent workers - The court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions for appropriate decision, emphasizing the need for the Government to act on the Tribunal's report. (Paras 2 , 4 , 6 )
(B) Government's Authority - The Government has the discretion to refer matters to the Tribunal, but it is not mandatory in every case. The final decision rests with the Government, which may choose to accept or reject the Tribunal's findings. (Paras 9 , 10 )
Facts of the case:
The petitions involve a dispute over the absorption of sanitation workers, with claims of preference based on employment exchange sponsorship. The Tribunal found that preference should be given to workers sponsored by the employment exchange. The Government has not finalized a decision on the Tribunal's report.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the Government to take a final decision on the issue based on the Tribunal's report within three months, maintaining the status quo until then.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Government must follow the Tribunal's recommendations or if it has discretion in decision-making.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the Government may refer matters to the Tribunal, it ultimately retains the power to decide whether to accept or amend the Tribunal's recommendations.
Result: Writ Petitions disposed of, with directions to the Government.
JUDGMENT :
These Writ Petitions pertain to a dispute regarding the absorption of contingent workers (sanitation) in the 3rd respondent Municipality. The issue concerns the priority/preference in the matter of absorption between those appointed through the employment exchange and those appointed other than by way of sponsorship from the employment exchange.
2. Through Ext.P10 judgment in WP(C) Nos.20810/2008 and 37079/2015 dated 5th April 2017, this Court after referring to the relevant Government Orders on the issue and considering the rival contentions, remitted the matter to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 . There was a direction to consider the claims of both parties. The Government was thereafter directed to take a decision based on the report of the Tribunal.
3. It is submitted that the Tribunal considered reference No.03/2013 as regards the decision of the Moovattupuzha Municipality dated 28.09.2012 and the two orders issued by the Secretary of the Municipality dated 01.10.2012 and 20.12.2012 through which, the substitute workers were given appointment in the cadre of contingent employees, allegedly in violation of the Government Orders dated 22.04.1982 and 29.03.2001.
4. The Tribunal after examining the relevant Government Orders found that as on the date of arising of a vacancy, if anyone from the list of workers prepared and who were sponsored by the employment exchange is available, irrespective of the date of inclusion of them in the said list, preference should be given to them, compared to the persons, who were not sponsored by the employment exchange. Though the reference was answered on 29th July 2017, the Government has not taken a final decision as enjoined under Section 57 of the Municipality Act.
5. Writ Petition No.29116 of 2018 is filed for a direction, commanding respondents 1 and 3 to grant permanent appointment to the petitioners in accordance with P12 report of the Tribunal or in other words seeking implementation of the reference order of the Tribunal. WP(C) No.23041 of 2020 is filed challenging the Government Order dated 18.10.2013, Ext.P3 and also Ext.P5, the reference order, whose implementation is sought in the connected Writ Petition.
6. It is not disputed that this Court had relegated the matter to the Tribunal as per Ext.P10 order in WP(C) No.29116 of 2018. The operative portion of Ext.P10, reads as follows:-
“In the above circumstances, as the petitioners are seeking implementation of Ext.P6, which is yet to be finalised, in view of Ext.P7 order of the LSGT, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions for appropriate decision in accordance with law. The petitioners as well as party respondents and the Municipality would be free to furnish additional statements if any before the Tribunal, with copy to the other side, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, in which case the Tribunal shall consider those statements also, before issuing orders based on the reference in Ext.P6. The claim of either parties shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the Government on the basis of the report of the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall take earnest efforts to pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The Government shall thereafter take a decision based on the report, within a further period of two months.
The registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.”
7. This Court clearly directed the Tribunal to consider either party's claims and the Government to take a decision based on the Tribunal's report. The report filed by the Municipality dated 20.11.2023 also states that the Government has to take a decision based on the Tribunal's report.
8. The relevant provisions of the Municipality Act reads as follows:-
“[57. POWE
The Government has discretion in decision-making regarding Tribunal recommendations under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, without mandatory adherence to the Tribunal's findings.
Selection for public employment must consider existing daily wage workers alongside candidates from Employment Exchange, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to interim court directives.
The court confirmed the petitioner's right to participate in the employment selection process alongside other candidates, notwithstanding prior limitations.
Selection processes for municipal positions must adhere to established regulations; failure to comply renders claims of entitlement nonviable.
The consent to waive employment rights by Sanitation Workers under local self-government is invalid if it conflicts with prior municipal decisions on regularization.
Employment candidates sponsored by an exchange must be considered in selection processes without prejudice despite administrative delays.
Temporary workers cannot claim rights under employment guidelines if appointed without following mandated selection processes, especially during emergency situations.
The court upheld that recruitment must allow fair opportunity to all eligible candidates; exclusive reliance on Employment Exchange for hiring is lawful but does not negate the necessity for equal op....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
