Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No.16443/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Unknown
For the Respondents: Unknown
The court held that eligibility for inclusion in the voters' list must await a fresh notification regarding the referendum.
Headnote:In these petitions, the court addressed the inclusion of 'Badali' workers in the voters' list for a referendum. The KSRTC argued these workers are not regular employees as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court found it premature to decide on their eligibility for the voters' list, as the referendum did not take place, and further notifications were needed for proper consideration. The question of inclusion will be reassessed when a new notification is issued. The petitions are closed with observations on this matter.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inclusion of badali workers in voters' list (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court observed future assessment needed for worker eligibility (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions are filed, being aggrieved by the fact that the Returning Officer appointed for conducting a referendum in the Kerala State Road Transport (hereinafter referred to as the KSRTC) has decided to include 'Badali' workers also in the voters' list prepared for conducting a referendum.
2. The learned Standing counsel appearing for KSRTC would submit that the ‘Badali’ workers are not entitled to be included in the voters’ list as they are not regular employees of the KSRTC and they do not fall within the definition of workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . It is also pointed out that the referendum, which was proposed in terms of the notification produced as Ext.P1 in W.P (C) No.16443/2025, did not take place, and the question as to whether the 'Badali' workers are entitled to be included in the voters' list can be decided as and when a fresh notification is issued.
3. The learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 4 to 11 and additional respondents 14 to 18 would submit that the 'Badali' workers are also entitled to be included in voters' list for conducting the referendum.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing counsel for KSRTC and the learned counsel for additional respondents, I am of the view that since the referendum proposed in terms of Ext.P1 in W.P(C) No.16443/2025 did not take place and a fresh notification is yet to be issued, the question as to whether the 'Badali' workers are entitled to be included in the voters’ list can be appropriately considered as and when a fresh notification is issued, making it clear that the impugned proceedings in this case will not conclude the matter and clarifying that the question will be considered afresh by the competent authority as and when a fresh notification is issued.
