Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29971
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J
INDIRAMMA, W/O LATE LAXMIPATHI, AGE 36 YEARS, OCC. COOK, R/O H.No.1-6-135, AMBABHAVANI AREA, INDIRA NAGAR, RAICHUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 86327 OF 2012 (L-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI. VILAS KUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NITESH PADIYAL., ADVOCATE
For the Respondents: SMT. ARTI PATIL., HCGP FOR R-1 TO 3 & 6; SRI. SHARANABASAPPA.K., BABSHETTY, FOR R-4; SRI. GOURISH.S.KESHAVPUR., FOR R-5
Long-term service and fulfillment of essential roles warrant regularization, distinguishing between irregular and illegal appointments, in light of constitutional provisions for local candidates.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Regularization of service - Petition challenging rejection of regularization claim by Labour Court - Claimants worked over 20 years as Cooks and Helpers - Judgment in Umadevi’s case cited; court clarifies distinction between irregular and illegal appointments - Court finds continued service warrants consideration for regularization. (Paras 10, 34, 54)
(B) Regularization - Legal principle - Court observes that long service and fulfillment of functions of the state necessitate fair regularization, regardless of earlier irregularities in appointment. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners served as Cooks, Assistant Cooks, and Helpers in Morarji Desai Residential School for over 20 years. Following an unsuccessful reference to Labour Court regarding their regularization, they sought judicial intervention.
Findings of Court:
Court found petitioners had a right to regularization based on long service and the constitutional mandate for employees of local regions.
Issues: Whether long-term service and conditions merit regularization despite initial irregular appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that continuous service and responsibilities of the petitioners demand fair consideration for regularization, reaffirming that Umadevi’s case should not automatically bar claims for those with long-term service histories.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioners to be regularized forthwith.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background regarding employment of petitioners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's reasoning on regularization rights. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 28 , 34) |
| 3. arguments regarding entitlement to regularization. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 26) |
| 4. interpretation of umadevi's judgment on regularization. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 52) |
| 5. order for regularization of petitioners' appointment. (Para 54 , 55 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
CAV ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga, by which the Labour Court has rejected the Reference.
2. On 28.08.2011, the Government of Karnataka referred the dispute as to whether the respondents therein (State, Executive Director of Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society; Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Raichur; and the District Officer, Social Welfare Department) were right in not regularizing the services of the claimants.
3. It was the case of the petitioners that they were working as Cooks, Assistant Cook, Helpers and Watchman at Morarji Desai Residential School Hostels and they had been appointed in accordance with law through the District Committee of Social Welfare Department which had passed a resolution for selecting the petitioners.
4. It was contended that they were working from several years and were therefore entitled to be regularized. They stated that they were aggrieved by a Notification by which tenders have been called for to engage employees on contract basis and since this would result in their removal, they were constrained to raise a dispute.
5. In response, the State Government entered appearance and contested the proceedings by filing objections. The State denied all the contentions raised by the petitioners and stated that they were not entitled to regularization. It was, however, admitted that the petitioners were working in the Moraji Desai Government Residential Hostel as piece- rate workers and their appointment was only for a temporary period till permanent appointment was made to the posts according to the Rules of Recruitment.
6. They contended that their claim for regularization cannot be considered since the Government had not given permission after 01.07.1984 to engage any daily wage workers and, therefore, the petitioners could not be permitted to seek regularization.
7. The petitioners adduced evidence by examining one of themselves and got two documents marked. On behalf of the State, no evidence was adduced.
8. The Labour Court on consideration of the evidence produced recorded a finding that as per Annexure-A to the Reference, it was clear that the petitioners had worked in the Social Department as Assistant Cooks, Helpers and Watchman right from 1995 and it was clear that they had rendered service in the Social Welfare Department for a fairly long period.
9. However, the Labour Court took the view that merely because they had rendered service for a very long period that would not confer a right on them to seek regularization.
10. The Labour Court, placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Umadevi’s case1, has come to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners could not be regularized and accordingly, rejected their Reference.
11. Aggrieved by this rejection of their Reference, the petitioners are before this Court.
12. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. P. Vilas Kumar appearing for the petitioners contended that the fact that the petitioners had rendered services in excess of 20 years was not in dispute and the Labour Court has affirmed this fact by recording a clear finding in that regard. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners, having rendered service in excess of two decades, were entitled to be regularized since their appointments could, at best, be considered as irregular. It was stated that since the petitioners were continued for a very long period, it was obvious that their employment was permanent in nature and the jobs entrusted were also perennial in nature.
13. He submitted that
