K.S. RAJEEVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim for regularisation in service made by the appellants was turned down by Ext.P6 communication dated 2.8.2001 whereas the writ petition challenging the same was filed only on 28.6.2014. The mere fact that regular recruitment through Public Service Commission started by Ext.P8 call letter dated 31.7.2014 pursuant to Ext.P7 ranked list does not renew the cause of action. The learned single Judge was right in holding that the petitioners are guilty of laches in invoking the writ jurisdiction for regularisation in service under the respondents.

(2.) That there will be a huge financial commitment to the second respondent if all the casual labourers are regularised who will not also have adequate work as stated in Ext.P6 communication cannot be glossed over. Moreover the recruitment has been entrusted to the Public Service Commission who have since published a ranked list and advised candidates therefrom. It is pointed out that the first appellant was not advised for appointment as his rank was low and the second appellant failed to join duty despite being advised as he was employed elsewhere.

(3.) The appellants are free to move the Labour or Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if really there is an unfair labour practice and the writ court is not the forum for ventilation of such grievance. The second respondent contends that few casual labourers are continued only on humanitarian grounds even though the work dwindled after Gosree Projects. It is not an inflexible rule that the services of all casual labourers should be regularised and Umadevi's (3) case is not of 'universal application' as observed by the single Judge. We do not think that a case has been made out to interfere with the judgment impugned and we have no other option except to confirm the same for the above reasons.