JOHNSON Vs. GENERAL MANAGER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four petitioners were recruited as conductors in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K. S. R. T. C.) through the employment Exchange and appointed as Reserve Conductors at Trichur with effect from June 6, 1980. Subsequently they were reappointed for a period of 89 days. That period was, according to the petitioners, to expire on December 13, 1980, though according to the respondent, the District Transport Officer of the K. S. R. T. C. at Trichur, the term of appointment of petitioners 1 and 3 was to expire on December 11, 1980 and that of petitioners 2 and 4 on December 9, 1-80. However that be, before expiry of the term, the petitioners filed the Original Petition on November 28, 1980. On December 1, 1980, the Original Petition was admitted and an order of interim stay till December 17, 1980 was made on C. M. P. No. 18164 of 1980 which had been filed by the petitioners along with the Original Petition. The prayer in the CMP. was "to stay all further steps for the termination of the petitioners from service". At the request of the petitioners order of interim stay was communicated by telegram to the respondent as directed by this Court. The communication, as stated in the counter-affidavit of the respondent, reached him on December 2, 1980 at 10 A. M. On December 3, 1980 at about 10 A. M. a memo Ext. P 3 dated December 1, 1980 was served on the petitioners saying that they (and certain others similarly placed) were "relieved of their duties in K. S. R. T. C. with effect from A. N. of 1 -12 1980". On December 4, 1980 the petitioners filed this application for directing their reinstatement in service and for taking appropriate action against the respondent for disobeying the order of interim stay. In support of the application the petitioners state that they were actually terminated from service only on December 3, 1980 after receipt of the order of stay, although the memo is dated December 1, 1980. that the termination was thus in breach of the order of stay and that the order of termination whatever its date, became effective only after it was communicated to them on December 3, 1980.

(2.) THE respondent's defence, in the counter-affidavit, is that Ext. P 3 was issued on December 1, 1980 before receipt of the telegram for communication to the parties mentioned therein through the Assistant Transport Officer with copies to the concerned sections and the Chief Officer of the K. S. R. T. C, that thereafter no further action had to be taken by him on the termination of the services of the petitioners, that in fact he took no further action in that regard and that he does not know when Ext. P 3 was served on the petitioners. He further states that he has not violated the order of stay as the termination of the petitioners' services took effect from the time and date (the afternoon of 1-12-1980) mentioned in Ext. P 3 and that after the issue of Ext. P 3 he had no authority to take any action to reinstate the petitioners without orders to that effect from the chief office.

(3.) I accept the respondent's statement that he communicated the order Ext. P to his subordinate, the Assistant Transport Officer on December 1, 1980 for service upon the petitioners and that he got the telegram from this Court only on December 2, 1980 at 10 A. M. I also accept the petitioner's statement that Ext. P 3 was served upon them only at 10 A. M. on December 3, 1980. (The respondent has not chosen to contest this statement nor to give his version though he had the means of ascertaining the facts ).