Employees seeking regularization with the second respondent relied on ten years of service and Supreme Court precedents. The court affirmed inability to grant regularization and dismissed the petition, noting financial constraints.
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 SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.2350 OF 2021(P)
PETITIONERS:
1 SUNITHA KUMARY, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O BINU R, SALES WOMAN, THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED(HANTEX), POST BOX NO.64,OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. RESIDING AT ASWATHIBHAVAN, THUMPODU,BALARAMAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.
2 K.LATHA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.V.RANGAN, SALES WOMAN, HANTEX EXCLUSIVE SHOWROOM, RAILWAY STATION ROAD,OVERBRIDGE, SANTHI NAGAR,PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695001, RESIDING AT THIRUVATHIRA, KELESWARAM,KALLIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 042.
3 L.SUGATHAKUMARI AMMA, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.RAJAPPAN NAIR.K, SALES WOMAN, HANTEX EXCLUSIVE SHOWROOM, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, OVERBRIDGE, SANTHI NAGAR,PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-695001, RESIDING AT VADAKEPILLA VEEDU, KELESWARAM, KALLIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695042.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF SMT.MOLTY MAJEED SRI.P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR
WP(C).No.2350 OF 2021
2
SRI.RUBEN GEORGE ROCK
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED(HANTEX), POST BOX NO.64,OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1 BY SRI. BIMAL K. NATH(SR.GP) R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ (SC)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.2350 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of March 2021
The petitioners are working as sales women on
temporary basis with the respondent since 2010. They claim that they have completed 10 years of continuous service with the second respondent. According to them, several persons have been considered for regularisation
but the petitioners are left out. The petitioners have
a further grievance now that, after the filing of the writ petition, they have been disengaged allegedly for moving this Court.
statement wherein the contention set up is that, they
have not regularized nor proposed for regularizing any of the employees. According to the second respondent, the institution is running at a heavy loss and during covid period the sales had completely come down. The second respondent do not require the services of most of the employees any longer. In the statement, names of
4
WP(C).No.2350 OF 2021
the persons who have been disengaged are also
mentioned.
respondent specifically relied on the decisions of the
Supreme Court in Secretary of State of Karnataka and Others v Umadevi and Others [2006 (4)SCC (1)], wherein
the Supreme Court has deprecated the process of
regularizing temporary employees but had extended the
benefits of regularization as a one time measure. The petitioners do not satisfy that criteria. Further a Division Bench of this Court has affirmed in Joy Joseph
v Institute of Human Resources [2021 (2) KLT 309], that
no regularization can be granted to any employee in the Government, its departments, statutory bodies including Local Self Government Institutions, Government
Companies, Statutory Corporation or any other Institutions like IHRD.
Having considered this, it is evident that the
petitioners cannot legally claim any right to be
regularized. Further, in the light of the financial
situation projected by the second respondent, there
WP(C).No.2350 OF 2021
cannot be an assurance of engaging persons even on a contract basis. Hence the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. However, with an observation that, if for any reason the second respondent requires temporary employees, the services of the petitioners shall be taken note of and positively considered.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE
SSK/18/03
WP(C).No.2350 OF 2021
6
APPENDIX
| **PETITIONERS' ** | EXHIBITS: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 10/01/2020. |
LETTER | NO.A3/256/H.O.HANTEX/2015 |
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTTED TO THE |
REPRESEN 2ND RES |
TATION DATED 23/11/2020 PONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED TO THE |
REPRESEN 1ST RESP |
TATION DATED 25/11/2020 ONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED TO THE |
REPRES 2ND RESP |
ENTATION DATED 22/01/2021 ONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE THE RIGHT TO INFO |
APPLICAT RMATION |
ION DATED 30/11/2020 UNDER ACT,2005 |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE FOR EXHIBIT P-5. |
REPLY | DATED 04/01/2021 RECEIVED |
| EXHIBIT P7 | A TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER. |
THE E | PF PASSBOOK OF THE 1ST |
| EXHIBIT P8 | A TRUE COPY OF 2020. |
THE RTI | APPLICATION DATED 08-11- |
| EXHIBIT P9 RESPONDENT'S |
A TRUE COPY OF TH 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBITS: NIL |
E REPLY | DATED 04-01-2021 FROM THE |
| SSK | //TRUE CO | PY// | PA TO JUDGE |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether temporary employees can claim a legal right to regularization after completing ten years of service.
Whether the employees satisfy the criteria for regularization under Supreme Court precedents and high court affirmations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umadevi and OthersDistinguished¶33
Secretary of State of Karnataka and Others v Umadevi and Others [2006 (4)SCC (1)] · Who else cites this
Joy JosephRelied on¶37
Joy Joseph v Institute of Human Resources [2021 (2) KLT 309]
Sunitha Kumary
K.Latha
L.Sugathakumari Amma
State of Kerala
Managing Director, The Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Limited(HANTEX)
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
