JUDGMENT
The petitioners are working with the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Board. The petitioners point out that the benefits pursuant to the 2009 pay revision were not extended to them.
2. On 07.08.2024, considering the specific contentions raised by the petitioners with reference to the nature of the work, schedule, qualifications, etc., which according to them were similar to that of the Government servants, this Court had directed the Government Pleader to get instructions and to file an affidavit / statement in that regard.
3. Pursuant to the said direction, Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned Senior Government Pleader has placed on record a statement dated 26.09.2024.
4. A reading of the said statement would show that the benefits pursuant to the 9thpay revision have been extended only to some of the Welfare Fund Boards in the State of Kerala, and as regards the balance, the benefits are not extended. In the said
3
statement, with reference to the constitution of the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Board, it is pointed out that there is subtle difference between the employees of the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Board and those working with the State Government. Ultimately, it is pointed out that whether or not to adopt the benefits under the pay revision is to be decided by the Government and the employees like the petitioners herein working with the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Board have no say in that.
5. I have heard Sri.R.Reji, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
6. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the documents on record, it is noticed that the petitioners are seeking the benefits of the 9thpay revision. As pointed out in the statement filed by the 1strespondent, the petitioners cannot, as of right, claim the said benefits.
7. However, this Court notices that the petitioners have specifically pointed out that there are various other Welfare Fund Boards, to which the benefits of the 9thpay revision have been extended. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1strespondent also, referred to above, this has been admitted.
4
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that, if the petitioners are also similarly situated, barring some minor changes in the qualification, nature of work, etc., there is no reason, why the said benefits are not being extended to the petitioners also.
In such circumstances, the petitioners are directed to file an appropriate representation in the matter before the 1strespondent herein, pointing out their grievances with the facts and figures, within a period of one month from today. If such an application is filed as above, the 1strespondent to consider the same sympathetically and pass appropriate orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months thereafter.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
anm
5