T VELAYUDHAN NAIR Vs. P W I S RLY
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T VELAYUDHAN NAIR
P W I S RLY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) IN this petition the petitioner complains about the termination of his services by Ext. P3 order and further pleads that the petitioner continued in service without break by reason of Ext. P3 order and as such he is entitled to all benefits which would have normally accrued to him had he continued in service. Ext. P3 order is one passed by the Permanent Way Inspector, Southern Railway, Podanur, stopping the petitioner from working from 4-7-1973. The petitioner was a casual labourer in the service of the Southern Railway administration. He had joined as a casual labourer in 1960. Recognising his service qualifying him for temporary status he was declared as temporary railway servant with effect from 29-10-1969. Ext. P1 is the copy of the order granting such temporary status to the petitioner as well as some others. According to the petitioner he was one of the senior casual labourers who had acquired temporary status. Under the rules in the railway establishment Manual such casual labourer who had obtained temporary status could be screened by a screening committee for absorption into regular service. The petitioner was called for screening, was found suitable and was appointed in a regular vacancy as substitute gangman. Ext P2 is the order so appointing the petitioner.
(2.) IT is the petitioner's case that on appointment under Ext. P2 the petitioner was entitled to all the benefits contemplated by Chapter XXIII of the Railway Establishment Manual and his service cannot be terminated without notice specified in R. 2302 of that Chapter. It is also said that his service cannot be terminated without paying retrenchment compensation as provided for in S. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) THE service of Ext. P3 dated 5-7-1973 by the 1st respondent on the petitioner was evidently on the ground that the petitioner, on medical examination, was not found to be fit for B1 category. It is the petitioner's case that even if he was unfit for B1 he could be absorbed in B2 category. Further, even if he was to be retrenched that should have been in accordance with s. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the further case of the petitioner that the authority who retrenched him, the first respondent, was not the appointing authority and therefore was incompetent to pass any order of termination of his service. Reference is made in the petition to the representation filed by the petitioner against Ext. P3, recommendation by the Assistant engineer to the Divisional Engineer, Olavakkot for posting the petitioner as khalasi in Creosoting plant and the inaction in spite of such recommendation.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.