Kerala High Court: Longevity Of Service Is Not The Only Factor In Determining Regularization
Last Updated on December 31, 2024 by Arti Kumari
Kerala High Court: Cochin Port Trust firefighters’ appeals for regularization and salary parity with permanent firefighters were denied by a single bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon. The firefighters were only employed as Leave Reserve Pool (LRP) employees, according to the court, and they were not eligible for regularization or equal compensation. According to the court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], regularization necessitates rigorous adherence to legal requirements.
Two writ petitions were filed by firefighters from the Cochin Port Trust’s Leave Reserve Pool (LRP) in an attempt to regularize their services and get compensation comparable to that of regular firefighters. An advertisement that listed the same requirements for both LRP and permanent posts led to the appointment of the LRP firefighters. Even after more than 20 years of service, they were only called upon when regular firefighters took time off and were paid much less.
They maintained that normal firefighters, who benefited from extra perks including weekly breaks, did not have their job any different from theirs. Additionally, they clarified that the Port Trust was compelled to rely on LRP employees due to a Central Government ban on regular appointments, which rendered their involvement irregular by necessity rather than choice.
The firefighters’ attorneys, Dr. V.N. Sankarjee and Mr. Sugunapalan N.N., contended that the long-term substitution of LRP employees for regular employees was exploitative and went against the equal pay for equal labor principle. Citing Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand [(2018) 8 SCC 238], they contended that regularizing workers who had served irregularly for more than ten years required a practical approach.
The Cochin Port Trust’s Mr. K. Anand contended that the firemen’s positions were never meant to be long-term. He insisted that LRP employees were only hired as necessary and that the Port Trust was not required to hire them on a regular basis. He added that the firefighters could not claim regularization because of the rules established in Umadevi.
Initially according to the 2003 newspaper ad, the firefighters were specifically designated as LRP employees, the court observed. They had no guarantee of regularization, and their employment was based on operational requirements. The court stressed that tenure of service alone does not establish any entitlement to regularization, even if it acknowledged that LRP employees have worked for more than 21 years.
In addition, the court cited Umadevi and decided that regularization is only allowed for workers who fulfill certain requirements, like having held legally recognized positions for at least ten years as of April 2006. Since the firefighters’ appointments resulted from a ban on normal recruitment rather than from approved permanent openings, they were unable to meet this requirement. The Port Trust had not continued irregular appointments in the same way as Jharkhand in that case, the court ruled, also setting the circumstances apart from Narendra Kumar Tiwari. Despite its length, it was determined that the LRP configuration still met operational requirements.
Finally, the court adopted the equal pay for equal effort premise. It held that salary parity could not be demanded because their engagement was fundamentally different from that of ordinary firefighters. The doctrine only applies when the job and employment terms are the same, which was not the case in this instance, the court decided. As a result, the court rejected the petitions and declined to regularize the employees. However, it requested the Port Trust to provide the firefighters extra grace marks and special treatment and instructed them to submit a representation to the Trust for future recruitments.
Case Title: S. Safeer v. Cochin Port Trust
