LexC. BALCHANDRAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERELA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 960
C. BALCHANDRAN AND ORS.
II.
STATE OF KERELA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7351 of 2008)
DECEMBER 17, 2008
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Labour Laws -
Re-instatement/regularization -
Termination of daily wagers on completion of project- Claim
c of, re-instatement and regularization - On basis of Supreme
Court decision in Jacob's case - Rejected by High Court
since workers not in service on date of decision in Jacob's
case - On appeal, held: Recruitment not made as per the
constitutional scheme of equality - Employees were
D terminated in 1987 and they did not challenge the termination
order _:_ Only after the decision in Jacobs case in 1991 they
filed representations which were rejected - More so in Jacob's
case, cases of daily wagers not considered - Thus, claimants
neither in law nor in equity entitled to reinstatement -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16.
E
Appellant-daily wagers were appointed against a
particular project. In 1987 their services were termin~ted
on completion of the project. In 1991, in *Jacob M.
Puthuparambil & Ors etc. v. Kera/a Water Authority this Court
held that employee serving in the establishment for a long
F period and having requisite qualification for the job, were
entitled to regularization in service. Appellants filed
representations seeking compliance of Jacob's case in
their favour but were rejected. Appellant filed writ petition.
High Court dismissed the same holding that
G regularization of workers in terms with the Jacob's case
was only possible where workers were in service on the
date of decision of Jaco'b's case. Appeal was also
dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
H
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
960
(
C. BALCHANDRAN AND ORS. v. STATE OF KERELA
961
AND ORS.
HELD: 1.1. The judgment rendered by this Court in
A
Jacob's case must be read in its entirety. It should not be
'
read as a provision of a Statute. This Court took into
.~
consideration the constitutional scheme to opine that
those who are in job should not be thrown out. Jacob's
case did not and in fact had no occasion to take into
consideration the cases of the daily wagers appointed
B
against a particular project and whose services had been
terminated after the project had come to an end. [Para 16]
_J
[968-D-F]
1.2. Appellants in their writ petition before the High c
Court as also before this Court did not state as to how
they had been appointed and for how many days or
months they had worked. They did not disclose as to
whether before their appointment any selection process
was resorted to or that they were registered with the
D
Employment Exchange. There is nothing on record to
show that before their recruitment, the constitutional
).
scheme of equality as envisaged under Articles 14 and
"'
16 of the Constitution of India was complied with. [Para
17] [968-F-H]
1.3 It is not in dispute that services of the appellants
E
were terminated in 1987 and they did not question the
legality or validity of the said order. It is only after the
decision of this Court in Jacob's case representations
were filed. Such representations were rejected both by
Kerala Water Authority as also State of Kerala. Appellants
F
~
thus, neither in law nor in equity were entitled to be
reinstated in service. [Paras 20 and 21] [970-E-F]
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) &
Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, Followed.
*Jacob M. Puthuparambil & Ors etc. v. Kera/a Water G
Authority ors etc. (1991) 1 SCC 28, held inapplicable.
..{_
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. Ranjodh
Singh & Ors., 2007 (2) SCC 491; Mineral Exploration Corpn.
#
Employees' Union vs. Mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd.2006
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A (6) SCC 310; State of MP. & Ors. vs. La/it Kumar Verma 2007
(1) SCC 575 and Postmaster General, Kolkata & Others vs.
Tutu Das (Dutta) 2007 (5) SCC 317, referred to.
B
c
D
E
Case Law Reference: ·
(1991) 1 SCC 28
Held inapplicable Para 21
(2006) 4 SCC 1
Followed
Para 21
2007 (2) SCC 491
Referred to.
Para 21
2006 (6) SCC 310
Referred to.
Para 21
2007 (1) SCC 575
Referred to.
Para 21
2007 (5) SCC 317
Referred to.
Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7351 of 2008.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 21.7.2003 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1036 of 2003.
Dr. K.F. Kyiasanatha Pillay, Ch. Leela Sarveshwar, Vijay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.