Kerala High Court
Cochin International Airport Limited vs M. Muraleedharan Nair on 21 July, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
RP NO. 1085 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2024 IN WP(C) NO.33287 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS:
1 COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED
KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - HR, MR. JAYARAJAN V., PIN - 683111
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, KOCHI AIRPORT
P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
- HR, MR. JAYARAJAN V., PIN - 683111
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
SMT.AMRUTHA SELVAM
SRI.K.R.PAUL
SHRI.CLINT JUDE LEWIS
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
M. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE N. MADHAVAN NAIR, ANIMA,
MADAVANA ROAD, ALINCHUVAD, VENNALA, KOCHI, - 682028
SRI.P.MOHANDAS
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:53979
RP NO.1085 OF 2024
..2..
ORDER
This review petition is filed against the judgment
dated 25.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.33287 of
2024.
2. While working as Deputy Superintendent of
Police in the Kerala Police, the respondent herein/writ
petitioner was sent for deputation to the Cochin International
Air Port (CIAL), the 1st petitioner for the period from 10.12.2005
to 08.12.2010. The remuneration payable to the respondent
during the period of deputation was paid by CIAL. During 2007,
on account of the delay in implementation of the Pay Revision
Order, all the employees of CIAL as well as the respondent was
given interim relief. Subsequently, the Pay Revision order,
2011 was enforced in CIAL with effect from 2007. By this time,
the respondent completed the period of deputation and was
relieved from CIAL on 08.12.2010 and rejoined to the State
Police service and was promoted as Superintendent of Police.
He retired from service on 30.11.2013. The grievance of the
respondent was that the Pay Revision arrears from September
2007 to December 2010 were not paid by the review
2025:KER:53979
RP NO.1085 OF 2024
..3..
petitioners. He had submitted Ext.P7 representation in this
regard before the 2nd review petitioner.
3. This Court, by the impugned judgment,
directed the 2nd review petitioner to consider Ext.P7 in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment. The said judgment is sought to be
reviewed in this review petition on the ground that the writ
petition is not maintainable as CIAL is not a State as defined
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the review
petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.552
of 2020 [Shiv Mohan v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.
and Others (2021:KER:35948) (2021 SCC Online KER
10859)]. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment reads thus:
7. Further, it is not necessary for us in the facts of this case, to
decide the issue, as to whether the writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India will or will not lie as against the respondents-
CIAL under any circumstances. The present case deals with the order
of dismissal issued by the respondent-employer to the appellant-
employee. The respondent-employer is a public limited company.
After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the ultimate
conclusion of the learned Single Judge that, writ remedy is not
available in the facts and circumstances of the case, for interfering
with an order of dismissal passed by the respondent-employer,
appears to be correct and tenable in view of the dictum laid down by
the Apex Court in decisions as in K.K. Saksena v. International
Commission on Irrigation & Drainage [(2015) 4 SCC 670], para 52
thereof. It is relevant to extract para.52 of the judgment of the Apex
2025:KER:53979
RP NO.1085 OF 2024
..4..
Court in K.K. Saksena's case supra [(2015) 4 SCC 670 p.696], which
reads as follows:
"52. It is trite that contract of personal service cannot be
enforced. There are three exceptions to this rule, namely:
(i) when the employee is a public servant working under the
Union of India or State;
(ii) when such an employee is employed by an
authority/body which is a State within the meaning of Article
12 of the Constitution of India; and
(ii)(sic) when such an employee is "workmen" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and raises a dispute regarding his termination by invoking
the machinery under the said Act.
In the first two cases, the employment ceases to have private
law character and "status" to such an employment is attached.
In the third category of cases, it is the Industrial Disputes Act
which confers jurisdiction on the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal
to grant reinstatement in case termination is found to be
illegal."
5. Since the Division Bench of this Court has
already taken the view that no writ under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India can be issued against CIAL, in the nature of
reliefs sought for, I find that the writ petition is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the judgment dated 25.09.2024 in W.P.(C) No.33287
of 2024 is reviewed and the writ petition is dismissed as not
maintainable.
The learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioners
submitted that the petitioners have paid the entire dues to the
respondent as sought for in Ext.P7 and the respondent has
2025:KER:53979
RP NO.1085 OF 2024
..5..
acknowledged the receipt of the dues. The said factum is also
recorded.
The review petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JUDGE
YKB
