Sunitha Kumary vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 9053 Ker

               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.

2. The second respondent has filed a detailed

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 WP(C).No.2350 OF 2021

the persons who have been disengaged are also

mentioned.

3. The learned counsel for the second

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

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3/256/H.O.HANTEX/2015 DATED 10/01/2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23/11/2020 SUBMITTTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 25/11/2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/01/2021 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/11/2020 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,2005

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04/01/2021 RECEIVED FOR EXHIBIT P-5.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE EPF PASSBOOK OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 08-11-

2020.

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04-01-2021 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
SSK                      //TRUE COPY//              PA TO JUDGE