The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the rejection of a claim for service regularisation. The court held that the appellants were guilty of laches due to a delay in filing the writ petition and that recruitment via the Public Service Commission did not renew the cause of action.
Writ appeal dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
THURSDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1940
W.A.No. 1786 of 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-09-2014 IN WP(C)NO.23006/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN WP(C):
1 K.S. RAJEEVAN @ K.R.SAJEEV, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN,KATTATHARA HOUSE, PANANGDU P.O, KOCHI, WORKING AS SYRANG, KSINC, THEVARA.
2 K.V ALEXANDER, S/O VAKKO, KANNANPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANDANADU, KOTHADU P.O, ERNAKULAM, WORKING AS SYRANG, KSINC, THEVARA.
BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COASTAL SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
R1 BY SRI. T.RAJASEKHARAN-SR.GP R2 BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,KINCO
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.03.2019, THE COURT ON 07.03.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA1786/2014
-: 2 :-
Judgment
Chitambaresh, J.
1.The claim for regularisation in service made by the appellants was turned down by Ext.P6 communication dated 2.8.2001 whereas the writ petition challenging the same was filed only on 28.6.2014. The mere fact that regular recruitment through Public Service Commission started by Ext.P8 call letter dated 31.7.2014 pursuant to Ext.P7 ranked list does not renew the cause of action. The learned single Judge was right in holding that the petitioners are guilty of laches in invoking the writ jurisdiction for regularisation in service under the respondents.
2.That there will be a huge financial commitment to the second
respondent if all the casual labourers are regularised who
will not also have adequate work as stated in Ext.P6
WA1786/2014
-: 3 :-
communication cannot be glossed over. Moreover the recruitment has been entrusted to the Public Service
Commission who have since published a ranked list and advised candidates therefrom. It is pointed out that the first appellant was not advised for appointment as his rank was low and the second appellant failed to join duty despite being advised as he was employed elsewhere.
Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if really there is an unfair labour practice and the writ court is not the forum for ventilation of such grievance. The second respondent contends that few casual labourers are continued
only on humanitarian grounds even though the work dwindled after Gosree Projects. It is not an inflexible rule
that the services of all casual labourers should be regularised
WA1786/2014
-: 4 :-
and Umadevi's (3) case is not of 'universal application' as
observed by the single Judge. We do not think that a case
has been made out to interfere with the judgment impugned
and we have no other option except to confirm the same for
the above reasons.
The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE
Sd/A.M. BABU, JUDGE
Sha/060319
WA1786/2014
-: 5 :-
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE TO I.A.NO.783/2016:
ANNEXURE A-1: TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION MADE IN MATHRUBHUMI THOZHIL VARTHA DATED 25.6.2016.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can grant regularisation in service despite delay in filing the writ petition.
Whether the mere initiation of recruitment through Public Service Commission renews the cause of action for regularisation.
Whether the case of Umadevi (3) has universal application to mandate regularisation of all casual labourers.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umadevi (3)Distinguished¶3
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.S. Rajeevan @ K.R. Sajeev
K.V. Alexander
State of Kerala
Kerala Shipping and Inland Navigation Corporation Ltd.
V. Chitambaresh
A.M. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
