Selvaraj J.R. vs State Of Kerala

V.G.Arun, J

The petitioner was appointed as Operator on contract basis in the Kerala Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (KELTRON) on 15.01.2007. His contract of appointment was renewed from time to time. As their contractual employment was continuing for more than 10 years, the petitioner and similarly placed contract employees sought regularisation. Their representations having failed to evoke any positive response, the contractual employees conducted a protest in front of the first respondent's office on 19.05.2018. During the course of the protest, the petitioner gave a public speech, which respondents 2 and 3 found to be derogatory. Therefore, the petitioner was suspended from service as per Ext.P7 Office Memorandum dated 19.04.2018. Later, by Ext.P9 dated 17.05.2018, the petitioner's contract of service with the KELTRON was terminated with immediate effect. Much later, by Ext.P12 Government Order dated 03.01.2021, the service of 296 contractual staff in the KELTRON and its subsidiary companies was regularised. The petitioner alleges that he was singled out for termination from among the contractual staff and discriminated against in the matter of regularisation. The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and to include his name in Ext.P12 order.

Heard Advs. Soumya Issac for the petitioner, M.A Zohra for the KELTRON and Senior Government Pleader, Premchand R Nair for the State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P9 order of termination was issued without conducting any enquiry or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is argued that the punishment of termination of petitioner's contract is grossly disproportionate to the alleged act of indiscipline viz.; speaking against the management. The further contention is that, having regularised the service of all other contractual employees, the same benefit ought to have been extended to the petitioner also. The refusal to consider the petitioner for regularisation amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and is therefore, liable to be interfered with.

In reply, learned Standing Counsel for KELTRON submitted that, being an employee on fixed term contract, the petitioner has no legal right to demand regularisation. Reference is made to Clause 2 (f) and 2.6 of the Standing Orders extracted in the counter affidavit, to submit that, workman engaged for work which is of a temporary nature and likely to be ended within a limited period, is bound to vacate the post at the end of the period for which he is appointed, and if the appointment till such time as an event may occur, the workman shall vacate the post on the happening of such event. It is submitted that the petitioner had instigated the other contractual employees to start an agitation demanding regularisation. The actions of the petitioner had affected the peaceful functioning of the unit and created enmity against the Company in the minds of the employees. The appointment being on fixed term basis and the Company having lost confidence in the petitioner, his contract was terminated, for which no disciplinary enquiry is necessary. Learned Counsel submitted that, upon termination of petitioner's contract, he had raised a complaint before the first respondent. The complaint was forwarded to the second respondent for appropriate action and accordingly, the issue was considered and Annexure-R2(a) reply submitted to the first respondent on 10.08.2018. The other contractual employees were regularised much after the termination of petitioner's contract and hence, Ext.P12 does not give rise to any cause of action, as far as the petitioner is concerned.

Learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P12, the Government's decision to regularise the existing employees.

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the KELTRON on a fixed term contract. After the decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and others [2006 (4) SCC 1], the law is well settled that continuance of service of a contractual employee will not confer him with a legal right to seek regularisaiton. Being a contractual employee, the petitioner was bound by the terms of the contract and his attempt to create unrest among the employees was sufficient reason for the management to terminate the contract. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, no departmental enquiry is necessary for terminating a fixed term contract of employment. The petitioner's challenge against Ext.P9 order of termination having been concluded by Annexure-R2(a), he cannot seek regularisation along with the employees who were in the service of the KELTRON as on the date of issuance of Ext.P12. The learned Government Pleader is right in pointing out that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P12, since his contract of employment stood terminated with effect from 17.05.2018.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.