The court upheld the principle that employment disputes, including transfers upon reinstatement, should be resolved through proper representation and procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that, while he was working as a Driver in the Thrissur Depot in the services of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), he met with an accident on 27.03.2022, leading to his licence being suspended. He says that he, thereafter, shifted to a lighter duty; but that when his licence was reinstated, he was not posted to Thrissur, but transferred to Ponnani, where he has joined under the protest. He thus prays that Ext.P7 order, which effects the afore transfer, be set aside; and the KSRTC be directed to post him at Thrissur, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

2. The afore submissions of Sri.K.P.Justine – learned counsel for the petitioner, were refuted by Sri.Deepu Thankan – learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, saying that if the petitioner makes an apposite representation against Ext.P7, it will be considered; and, if possible, he can be accommodated at Thrissur, subject to all other requirements being satisfied.

3. When I consider and evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is evident that there is some force in the request made by the petitioner because, he was serving the Thrissur Depot, when his licence was suspended. Normally, therefore, when the same was restored, he should have been considered for appointment at the same Depot. Of course, there may be reasons for the KSRTC acting otherwise, perhaps because there were alternate person posted in the said Depot, while the petitioner was given other duties. These are not matters that this Court can enter into or decide affirmatively, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .

4. In the afore circumstances, I am clear in my mind that the suggestion of Sri.Deepu Thankan is the best available to the petitioner. Further, I notice that the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P9 before the Chairman and Managing Director, wherein various other plea have also been impelled. I am hence of the opinion that petitioner must make a specific representation against Ext.P7.

Resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition, leaving liberty to the petitioner to make an apposite representation against Ext.P7 before the Competent Authority of the KSRTC; and if this is done, same will be disposed of by the said Authority, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE lsn APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40363/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED

06.04.2022 OF THE INSPECTOR OF GURUVAYUR DEPOT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.E1/809/22/TCR DATED 27.01.2022.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO LR

9/004671/2016 DATED 04.05.2017.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

10.05.2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

28.062022 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 JUDGMENT DATED 14.07.2022 IN WP(C)

NO.22120/2022.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.E1/14041/22/TCR DATED 09.11.2022.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2022 IN WA NO.1381/2022.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2 DATED 24.11.2022.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE LSN