Judges : M.RAMACHANDRAN
Ajith - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No.34639 of 2002
Decided On : 02/01/2005
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : A.X. Varghese, Advocate. For the Respondent: B.S. Krishnan (Sr. Advocate), K. Anand, Advocate.
Regularization - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act - Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act - Supreme Court principles on regularization of employees - Public sector engagement - Temporary and provisional basis engagement - Judicial sympathy and caution - Closure of project and termination of employees - Arbitrariness in employment and termination - Government's role in deciding regularization
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, engaged as Hatchery Workers under the Matsyafed-2nd respondent, sought regularization of their service after being engaged for several years. The Federation had issued orders to terminate casual workers after a specified period, leading to the petitioners' claim for regularization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' engagement was not casual and that a distinction was drawn between engagements before and after a specific date. It directed the Secretary, Department of Fisheries to independently consider the regularization requests and make a decision within three months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the petitioners' engagement, the impact of government regulations on their regularization, and the need to avoid arbitrariness in employment and termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for caution in regularizing employees, especially in public sector engagements, and highlighted the impact of project closure on employee termination. It also stressed the government's role in deciding regularization and the avoidance of arbitrariness in employment and termination.
Final Decision: The Original Petition was disposed of with directions for the Secretary, Department of Fisheries to independently consider the regularization requests and make a decision within three months.
M. Ramachandran, J.
In paragraph 2 of the Original Petition, the petitioners have given the details of their engagement as Hatchery Workers under the Matsyafed-2nd respondent (hereinafter referred to as Federation), in their various Units. Excepting the 6th respondent, others have been served with notice and because of the presence of the second respondent, I do not think this position is to be treated as a defect so as to stall adjudication of the issue. The claim urged is one for regularization of service.
2. The contention is that after imparting six months training in Hatchery operation by technicians, who had been specialized and brought even from abroad, the petitioners have been engaged for work in Hatcheries of the second respondent, in different locations. Statements indicate tat the last of them was engaged pm 20.4.1995 and rest of them had commenced service from earlier dates, in some cases, from February 1993 onwards. Mr. A.X. Varghese, counsel for the petitioners, submits that such service was uninterrupted, though termed as casual.
3. It is further pointed out that later on because of austerity measures, there were restrictions in employing workmen on casual basis, and by Ext.P1 dated 7.8.2001, the Federation had advised the District Officers that all personnel, who had been engaged on daily wages, were to be terminated on completion of 179 days of service. Such engagements were also directed to be restricted to absolute minimum.
4. Thereafter, an office order was issued on 17.8.2001 as Ext.P5, and so far as it is relevant, an important condition incorporated therein, had been highlighted as following:
“All personnel who are engaged in your Unit on or after 29.4.1995 on Daily Wage/Contract/Piece rate basis beyond 179 days should be terminated with immediate effect and compliance reported.”
This was followed by Ext.P2 communication, which in fact was on a review of the earlier orders on the subject. Details had been called for. A Circular which followed on 7.8.2002 (Ext.P3) in peremptory terms directed for termination of casual workers on completion of their period of contract and the vacancies were to be filled up only through Employment Exchange with a stipulation that they will not be permitted to continue beyond 179 days. However, according to the petitioners, these pertained to personnel who had come to be engaged after 25.4.1995 alone. The text of the Circular could be extracted herein below:
“The Auditors and Registrar of Fisheries Co-operatives have pointed out that the engagement of provisional hands after the Public Service Commission notification is against the rules and provisional appointment shall be made only through the Employment Exchange.
In these circumstances it is hereby directed that those who are engaged on provisional basis after 25.4.1995 should be terminated on completion of their present period of contract. The vacancies hereafter should be filled up only through Employment Exchange and they should not be allowed to continue beyond 179 days.”
5. Petitioners also refer to the recommendatory steps taken by the Units-in-charge. According to them, services of persons similarly situated like them were essential for running the establishment. Hatchery Operations were a specialized field and skills could have been acquired only after training coupled with experience, and fresh Employment Exchange hands perhaps might have been ill-suited, taking notice of the work expected of them, relating to prawn breeding.
6. Budget proposals for the year 2002-2003 and the Action Plan for the Personnel Division of the Federation, as could be seen from the extracts produced as Ext.P6, dealt with the issue of regularization of temporary employees. Paragraph 4 thereof is to the following effect:
“4. Regularization of Temporary Employees.
Some of the employees taken in the Federation’s Production Units, Hatcheries & Farms on temporary basis are continuing in service for several years. These personnel have acquire
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.