SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham, J
STATE BANK OF INDIA HOUSE KEEPING & MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES UNION – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26211 OF 2026



Important Points

The court directed the respondent bank to consider and decide upon the representation for regularization of housekeeping and maintenance employees after providing them an opportunity for a hearing.

Subject

Employment Law - Regularisation of Service

Headnote

(A) Employment Law - Regularisation of Service - Direction to consider representation - Where employees are engaged through an agency, the court may direct the employer to consider the request for regularisation after providing an opportunity for a hearing. (Para 2, 3)

Issues: Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the representation for absorption/regularisation of housekeeping and maintenance employees.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Franklin Arackal, Neethu Soman
For the Respondents: P Ramakrishnan

Table of Content
1. request for regularization of employees engaged through an external agency. (Para 1 , 2)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of August, 2026

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 representation after affording an opportunity of hearing, wherein they have sought for a direction to the respondents to absorb/regularise the housekeeping and maintenance employees of the Bank.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank upon instructions submitted that they are not directly engaging housekeeping and maintenance employees, and it is done through another agency with whom they have executed agreements. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that they have been continuing in employment for long.

Taking into consideration the limited request made by the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 request submitted by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top