BAKTHAVATSALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions have been filed by salesmen, sales-Assistant-cum-packer, and Cycle Mechanic who were working in the canteen in Tamil Nadu and Kerala sub Area in Madras, against the orders of termination dt. 16. 12. 1991 and 15. 12. 1992.

(2.) SINCE the facts of these cases are similar, except the service put in by each of the writ petitioners, suffice it to state the facts in W. P. No. 2472 of 1992 which are as follows: The petitioner has been working as Senior Salesman in the tamil Nadu and Kerala sub Area C. S. D. Canteen at Madras and the said Canteen is being run by the Tamil Nadu and Kerala sub Area, which is under the control of the Commander, the second respondent herein. The petitioner herein has been working in the Canteen for the past 15 years. The stores, goods,articles etc. in the Canteen are meant to be sold only to the army personnel, ex-servicemen and not to general public It is alleged in the affidavit that there are about twenty persons working in the Army canteen including the Manager, that a proposal was being considered to remove the civilian employees in the Unit Rum Canteens and to substitute ex-servicemen in the place of the civilians. But that idea was given up on the representation made by the All India Defence Civilian Canteen Employees' 'Union to the Ministry of Defence. It is alleged in the affidavit that the canteen has sales turnover about Rs. 2 lakhs per month, that it serves about 4,000 card-holders in addition to serving officers and transients who are also entitled to make purchases in the canteen its others and that through the stuff employed were insufficient the respondents, for various reasons best known to them, sought to terminate without any notice to the employees. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the employees are governed by the Standing Orders for the Sub-Area and that Clauses 37-C, 52-C, 52-D, and 55-E (iii) of the standing Orders for the sub-Area speak about the mode of running the Canteen. It is also stated that on 12. 2. 1992, the Canteen officer suddenly came into the canteen premises, that he took six bottles of rum which was in possession of the petitioner and that he seized them. It is also stated that the petitioner was called upon by the first respondent and that he was served with an order of termination of services on untenable charges. It is also stated that no show cause notice was given, no explanation was called for and no enquiry was conducted. The petitioner also alleges in the affidavit that the order of the first respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated by the petitioner in the affidavit that the respondent sought to terminate the services of the petitioner without even asking for an explanation, and that the services were terminated at the whims and fancies of the first respondent and that the action of the respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner in violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also alleged in the affidavit that no explanation has been asked from the manager, who would be better person to give a detailed report on the functioning of the Canteen and that the respondents contemplated to remove the civilians from service but fearing publicity they have adopted such unconstitutional and arbitrary methods without any justification by removing the petitioner and others summarily under some pretext or other.

(3.) MR. G. Jawaharlal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that it is not the case of the respondents that the Tamil nadu, Kerala Sub Area Canteen is a Registered Society or a Company, that even assuming that the Tamil Nadu and Kerala Sub Area CSD Canteen is a registered society or a company in so far as the funds flow from Military Department and the Department being a military office, a writ will lie against the impugned orders, which have been passed arbitrarily in this case.