Dismissed

R.Sadasivan Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2016WP(C)/6792/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Labour Court award confirming the termination of casual employees. The court held that the petitioners could not claim regularisation as they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and lacked continuous service as per prevailing rules, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and the impugned award of the Labour Court remains operative.

R.Sadasivan Nair Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).NO. 6792 OF 2004 (H)

¶6

--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ID 19/1992 OF LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM DATED 03-12-2002

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. R.SADASIVAN NAIR, S/O.RAMCHANDRAN NAIR,
NOW R/AT T.C.17/730, CHITRA NAGAR, POOJAPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. V.SANALKUMARAN NAIR, S/O. LATE VELUKUTTY NAIR, SOWPARNIKA, NEAR MAHADEVA TEMPLE, KOOVALASSERY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. A.UDAYAKUMAR, S/O. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, MUTHIYOORVILA PUTHENVEEDU, ARAYALLOOR, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-6.
4. S.SASIKUMAR, ROSE GARDEN VEEDU, NEAR LAYOLA COLLEGE, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. R.GOPAKUMAR, MELEKUNJU VEEDU,THIRUVALLAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27.
6. G.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. GOPI, HOUSE NO.537, RAJAJI NAGAR, CHENGALCHOOLA,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
7. S.SREEKUMARI, D/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, T.C.6/407, JANAKI MANDIRAM, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13.
8. S.GIRIJAKUMAR, W/O. V.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, NOW RESIDING AT, ANJU BHAVAN, VADAVASALA, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
9. K.THANKI, W/O. K.P.PRADEEPKUMAR, KEEZHEKALLUMALAPUTHEN VEEDU, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
10. S.THULASIKUMARI, W/O. P.N.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, NOW R/AT TC.6/429, LAKSHMI NIVAS, MULAMOODU LANE,VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13.
BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

¶9

¶10

WP(C).No. 6792 of 2004 (H)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD., PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.SANDEEP.E. BY ADV. SMT.AMRITA JAYARAM BY ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA BY SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC FOR R2

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 6792 of 2004 (H)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 3.12.2002 IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.19/1992 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶22

//TRUE COPY//

¶23

P A TO JUDGE

¶24

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.6792 of 2004

¶25

............................................................. Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 award of the Labour Court, Kollam, by which the termination of the petitioners from the services under the 2^nd respondent was upheld by the Labour Court while pronouncing on an industrial dispute that was referred to it for adjudication. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that the petitioners were working under the 2^nd respondent pursuant to their engagement as casual employees during the period between 1981 and 1983. Alleging that the 2^nd respondent had terminated their services without following the procedure established by law, and the provisions of the settlement entered into between the trade unions functioning in the establishment, the petitioners had approached the Government for the reference of an industrial dispute and the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kollam, by an order dated 22.01.1992 of the State Government. The industrial dispute was adjudicated and by Ext.P1 award, the Labour Court found against

¶28

-2-

¶29

W.P.(C). No.6792 of 2004

¶30

the petitioners and dismissed their claim. Ext.P1 award is premised on the finding that the petitioners were engaged only on a casual basis on daily wages and there was no continuity in service for the purposes of claiming regularisation in service. It was also found, based on the judgment of this Court, that as per the recruitment rules prevailing in the establishment, the engagement of workers on regular basis had to be necessarily preceded by a sponsoring from the Employment Exchange. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, and therefore, their candidature could not be considered by the respondent establishment for engagement on a permanent basis. That apart, it is the finding of the Labour Court in Ext.P1 award that they also did not have the long and continuous service that was a prerequisite for staking a claim for regularisation in service.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶32

-3-

¶33

W.P.(C). No.6792 of 2004

¶34

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and finding that the petitioners cannot aspire for a permanent appointment without being qualified for the same as per the Recruitment Rules in force, I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P1 award of the Labour Court which is impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶36

mns/23.05.16

R.Sadasivan Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sadasivan Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Convenor,Cochin Commercial Employees Vs Labour Court,Kozhikode

Administrator, Bi.Alphonsa Hospital Vs State of Kerala and Ohters

The Federal Bank Ltd. and Another Vs a.C.Chummar & Others

Madhuri Vs Ramesh Kammath

Syndicate Bank Vs Prasannakumari

The Kerala Gramin Bank Vs Gracy