S.KRISHNAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by a District and Sessions Judge challenging Exhibit P2 order of transfer in so far as it transfers him as Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has only nine months more to retire from service and that he had been posted as District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode only by Exhibit P1 order dtd. 8/4/2022. It is stated that the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court is a post to which appointment has to be made by the Government in its Labour Department in accordance with Sec. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the petitioner's consent is required for a deputation as Presiding Officer. It is further contended that Exhibit P4 general transfer norms provide that an officer is entitled to continue in one station for a period of three years and there will be a transfer during the middle of the term only if it is necessary in the interest of administration or special circumstances necessitating such transfer. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has an unblemished service of 27 years and the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Principal District and Sessions Judge for passing a judicial order is completely untenable and unjustified. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Inder Singh and others [(1997) 8 SCC 372] to contend that where the deputation is to a different service outside the service where the employee retains lien, such deputation cannot be unilateral and it requires the consent of the persons so deputed.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader would contend that an order has been passed by the Government on 29/8/2022 appointing the petitioner as Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam in pursuance to Exhibit P2 proceedings.

(3.) The petitioner is a Judicial Officer working as a Selection Grade District and Sessions Judge and that there is no doubt that the petitioner is liable to render service anywhere in the State of Kerala. Exhibit P2, which is an order by which four transfers have been effected does not cast any aspersions on the petitioner and that there is no mention in the said order with regard to any judicial orders or to his conduct as a Judicial Officer. The post of Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is a post borne on the cadre of District and Sessions Judges in the State of Kerala and the contention of the petitioner that it is a deputation or a Government appointment which requires a consent from the appointee is completely untenable. Even in case willingness had been obtained on any earlier occasions, that will not support the contention of the petitioner that such consent of the incumbent is legally required for a transfer. As is evident from the impugned order itself, the post of Presiding Officer of Labour Court in the State of Kerala is habitually being filled up by transfer from the Kerala Higher Judicial Service and all that is required is an order of the Government, which has also been issued in this case. The petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced in any manner by his transfer as a Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Kollam.