The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of affording an opportunity to the affected parties before passing an order with civil consequences, as per the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:
Essential Services - Kerala Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance, 1966 - S.2, S.3, R.34 of Kerala Service Rules - The judgment discusses the validity of the order Ext. P4 challenged in the petitions, which discontinued the advance increment granted to Non-gazetted Officers during a strike. The court considered the provisions of the Kerala Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance, 1966, and the Kerala Service Rules, particularly R.34, and the civil consequences of the order Ext. P4. The court emphasized the principles of natural justice and the need to afford an opportunity to the affected parties before passing an order with civil consequences. The judgment sets aside the order Ext. P4 and allows the writ applications.
Fact of the Case:

The petitions challenged the validity of order Ext. P4, which discontinued the advance increment granted to Non-gazetted Officers during a strike. The State Government had issued orders granting the advance increment, followed by the order Ext. P4 discontinuing it. The petitioners contended that the order violated R.6 and 31 of the Kerala Service Rules, infringed constitutional provisions, and was passed without affording them an opportunity to state their contentions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order Ext. P4 had civil consequences and was passed without granting an opportunity to the petitioners and others similarly situated to state their cases or raise their contentions. The court emphasized the principles of natural justice and set aside the order Ext. P4, allowing the writ applications.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the order Ext. P4 under the Kerala Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance, 1966 and the Kerala Service Rules, the infringement of constitutional provisions, and the violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to afford an opportunity to the affected parties before passing an order with civil consequences, as per the principles of natural justice. The court held that the order Ext. P4, which discontinued the advance increment, had civil consequences and was passed without granting an opportunity to the petitioners and others similarly situated to state their cases or raise their contentions.
Final Decision: The judgment set aside the order Ext. P4 and allowed the writ applications. No order as to costs was made.

Judgment :-

1. The main points raised in these Original Petitions are the same. So we propose to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment.

2. In the view that we are taking in these cases it is unnecessary to deal with all the contentions that have been raised in each of these petitions. We shall however refer to the main contentions.

3. The validity of the order Ext. P4 in O. P. No. 1449 of 1967, Ext. P4 in O. P. No. 1450 of 1967, Ext. P5 in O. P. No. 1530 of 1967 and Ext. P4 in O. P. No. 1958 of 1967 is challenged before us in these petitions. These Exhibits are copies of the identical order passed by the State Government on 12 51967. To understand the contentions relating to the claim that this order has to be set aside, it is necessary to state a few facts.

4. Earlier, the Governor of Kerala promulgated an Ordinance, the Kerala Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance, 1966 on the 22nd of December 1966 and the same was published in the Gazette dated 22nd December, 1966. As envisaged by sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of S.2 of the said Ordinance, a notification S. R. O. No. 465/66 was also issued by the State Government on the 22nd December, 1966 and published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary on that date. Under that notification all services under the Kerala State Electricity Board as well as the following services,

1. All services under the Health Services Department,

2. All services under the Public Health Engineering Department connected with Water Supply and Drainage,

3. All services in the Civil Supplies Department both under the Government and the Board of Revenue,

4. The Kerala Treasury Service and the Kerala Treasury Subordinate Service,

5. The Kerala National Employment Service and the Kerala National Employment Subordinate Service.

6. Services of persons working as Superintendents, Stenographers, Telephone Operators and Drivers in all offices,

7. Services of persons working in Secret Sections, Account Sections, Budget Sections, and Election Sections in all Offices, were declared to be essential services for the purpose of the said Ordinance.

A further notification S. R. O. No: 466/66 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of S.3 of the Kerala Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance, 1966 was issued prohibiting strikes in all services declared by the Government to be Essential Services for the purpose of the above-mentioned Ordinance. Clause (3) of S.3 of the Ordinance, enacts that any strike declared K. Chandrasekaran & T. Chandrasekara Menon For Petitioners in O. P. 1968/67,

Advocate General For State V. K. K. Menion & C. J. Balakrishnan For 2nd Respondent in 0. P. 1449/67

JUDGMENT

Govindan Nair, J. The main points raised in these Original Petitions are the same. So we propose to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment.

2. In the view that we are taking in these cases it is unnecessary to deal with all the contentions that have been raised in each of these petitions. We shall however refer to the main contentions.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1968 Supreme(Ker) 143

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of affording an opportunity to the affected parties before passing an order with civil consequences, as per the principles of natural justice.

Cases Referred (1)

Login now and unlock premium legal research