M V KURIAKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner alleges infringement of his rights under Arts. 16 (1) and 31 (1) of the Constitution. He joined the service of the erstwhile Transport Department of the state of Kerala as a Cleaner in the Mechanical Wing in 1949. He was promoted to the post of Helper and then Assistant Mechanic, and, finally, to that of a Mechanic. On 15th March, 1965, the Kerala State Transport Corporation was set up under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") so that he became a servant of the Corporation. He alleges that, as the Kerala State is administering the Corporation and appoints its Chairman and Members under S. 5 of the Act, he is entitled to the protection given by the State to its servants. According to him, the Corporation is really an arm or an agent of the State. We need not, however, consider the correctness of this proposition as the petitioner has not, in our opinion, succeeded in showing how any of his rights under Art. 16 (1) of the Constitution, and, even less, how any right of his under Art. 31 of the Constitution could have been infringed, assuming that he is a servant of the State.

(2.) It appears that on 10th July, 1968, there was a settlement in a dispute between the Corporation and its employees. Under this settlement, a trade test was to be conducted after inviting applications form lower grades so what are known as the "mechanical line", that is to say, Assistant Electricians, Assistant Tyre Inspectors, Stitchers, Solutioners etc. for filling up posts in the higher grades. It was mentioned there that "grade promotions" will taske place up to the post of Assistant Chargeman, presumably without a "trade test" but, even under this settlement, appointment to the post of chargeman could only take place on the basis of results in a "Trade Test" subject to seniority. Indeed, it was stated there that Assistant Chargeman of more than three years service will be entitled to take part in the trade test. The "Trade Test" was apparently a test of competence in technical knowledge for the work to be done in the mechanical line.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the settlement was operative unitl an industrial dispute arose. That dispute was referred to arbitration under S. 10A of the Industrial Dispute Act (14 of 1947) on 6th April 1971. The subject-matter of the dispute was widely stated so as to embrace "all questions relating to" wage structure, the ratio between the higher and lower grades, the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to each category, and methods to be adopted for increasing productivity so as to contribute to the maximum efficiency and economic advantages from the working of the Corporation. Among the matters decided in the Award given was that categorywise seniority, together with Trade Test, should determine the promotions to higher grades. The Award dated 31st December 1972 was duly notified. It is true that conditions of service were not specifically mentioned among subjects referred to arbitration. But, promotions based on passing appropriate tests could certainly affect productivity. Moreover, nobody took steps to assail the Award on any ground whatsoever.