B KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. CHAIRMAN MADRAS PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner joined in the Madras Port Trust as Mines Engineer on June 3, 1971. Ever since the date of joining duty as Mines Engineer, Madras Port Trust, he was working in the capacity of Mines Engineer on the pay roll of the Madras Port Trust. The petitioner received a notice on March 26, 1986 stating that his services were not required with effect from June 30, 1986 on the ground that the Port Trust had stopped all the quarry operations at Pallavaram Quarry. The petitioner made representation that he was working as a permanent employee and even if Pallavaram Quarry is closed, he must be absorbed elsewhere in other departments of the Government. The complaint of the petitioner is that other employees who were working under him were absorbed by the respondents, but the petitioner alone was singled out, and was not granted any alternative job. On June 30,1986, the respondents passed an order stating that the petitioner was relieved, from the post of Mines Engineer with effect from June 30, 1986 consequent to the termination of his services due to closure of Pallavaram Quarry. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination on the ground that the order of termina-tion is against the rules and regulations of Madras Port Trust and the order is silent with reference to compensation. It was also contended that the petitioner was willing to work in some other department of the Government and with-, out considering his request, the order of termination was passed.

(2.) THE respondents have filed a counter-affidavit to the effect that the Madras Port Trust has taken on lease the Pallavaram Quarry Lands from the Tamilnadu Government and the lease was terminated and the ouarry was surrendered to the Government of Tamilnadu with effect from June 30, 1986. Consequently, the petitioner's services were terminated after giving three months notice. The termination of the services of the petitioner was due to bonafide reasons consequent on the abolition of the post. It is also stated that the petitioner is holding a De-gree in Mining and Metallurgy and there are no suitable alternative post that could be offered to the petitioner in the Madras Port Trust, and there was no equivalent post. As regards others who were working in the quarry, the Port Trust ab-sorbed them as Khalasis, Hammermen and Storemen. It was also stated that the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 37,715/- in full settlement of his Provident Fund dues from the respondents. Therefore, it was stated that the termination of services of the petitioner consequent to the abolition of the post of Mines Manager was in accordance with rules.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He submitted that the petitioner was thrown out of the job and even if the post was abolished the petitioner should have been given another alternative job in Madras Port Trust itself. He has submitted that the petitioner should have been offered another al- temative job, because at the time of termination of service, he was fairly an aged man and it was impossible task for him to seek another employment at that point of time. Since the Madras Port Trust itself has abolished the post, it should have taken steps to rehabilitate the petitioner in some other capacity as was done in the case of other employees who were working under the petitioner.