JUDGMENT

Petitioner through the instant writ petition seeks the following reliefs:

i. To call for the records leading to the non-renewal of Ext.P3 and to extend the period of service of the petitioner as a 'Junior Customer Agent' under the 1st respondent company, in the interest of justice.

ii. To declare that Ext.P3 agreement is liable to be renewed and the non-renewal is in violation of the principals of natural justice and the non-renewal amounts to denial of employment, which is an arbitrary decision.

iii. To issue a writ Mandamus or any such other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to renew Ext. P3 and deploy the petitioner for work as 'junior customer agent', in International Airport, Kochi, and to pay wages in accordance with the law.

(iv) To issue a writ Mandamus or any such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to take appropriate steps for carrying out the necessary correction in the ESI registration form as requested by the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

2. On the perusal of the reliefs aforementioned, it is basically, the reliefs as couched under the provisions of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Now the question which arises is in view of the provisions of the contract as well as the Specific Relief Act whether the petitioner in the circumstances, which are enumerated herein below, can seek the indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The facts in brief are that vide Ext.P3 dated 17.4.2017, a contract was arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent on receipt of the application for appointment to the post of Junior Customer Agent in Al Airport Services Limited for a fixed period of three years from 17.4.2017 to 16.4.2020 in Air India Air Transport Services Ltd. on payment of gross emoluments of Rs.14,010/- per month which owing to the pandemic, concededly was extended up to 30.6.2022. The terms and conditions of the aforementioned agreement Ext.P3, required both the parties to perform the part of the agreement and clause 28 provided that it will automatically expire on 16.4.2020 or an attaining the age of superannuation, ie., 58 years, whichever is earlier. During the subsistence of the aforementioned contract, respondent vide order dated 1.2.2019 de-rostered the petitioner which was assailed in this court vide W.P.(C) No.9421 of 2019. Noticing the contentions of both the parties, vide judgment dated 27.5.2019 this Court directed the 4th respondent therein to take decision on payment of wages to the petitioner from the date of passing of the order dated 1.2.2019 and in case the 4th respondent concludes the proceedings initiated pursuant to 1.2.2019 and takes a final decision at the earliest the idle bench sitting would be avoided. The aforementioned directions was not complied with, necessitating the petitioner to file the contempt petition. An order Ext.P14 during the interregnum dated 12.6.2019 was passed whereby he was suspended from the duty and was entitled to subsistence allowance of 50% of wages/salary for the first 90 days of suspension and 75% of the wages/salary for the remaining period ie., 1.2.2019 to 1.5.2019. It is also a matter of record that the entire salary was thereafter paid and the question which now revolves around is a consideration of the request of the petitioner as envisaged in Ext.P6 whereby the renewal of the contract on various grounds which was also requested again vide Ext.P17 dated 15.7.2020, has been sought.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment on contract basis is not appreciated by the Government in view of the information received under the RTI Ext.P23 dated 5.8.2015 whereby it was replied that there was no such direction from the Ministry of Labour and Employment for indulging into 'Fixed Term Employment'. However the Ministry of labour and Employment decided to re-introduce the term 'Fixed Term Employment' i