IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 11902 of 2007(P)
1. VINODLAL, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
... Respondent
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :29/06/2007
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.11902 OF 2007
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was appointed as an Overseer in the Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation for a period of one year on
contract basis. Ext.P2 order issued by the Corporation in this
regard unambiguously shows that he was appointed for a
period of one year only with effect from the date of joining of
duty. It was agreed that petitioner would be paid
consolidated remuneration of Rs.5,000/- per month.
2. It appears that the Corporation had on expiry of the
one year period extended the term by one month. The period
was again extended by another month. In the meanwhile, the
Corporation had taken steps to engage Overseers from among
its qualified employees. It is contended by the petitioner that
the Corporation is not justified in terminating his contract. It
is his contention that the petitioner is entitled to continue till
the project for which he had been engaged is over. He
impugns Ext.P4 order by which he has been disengaged along
W.P.(C)No.11902 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
with two other overseers.
3. Learned counsel invites my attention to Ext.P5 which
is stated to be a true photocopy of the minutes of the Board
of Directors of the Corporation. In Ext.P5, it is seen that the
Board of Directors had resolved to post one Project Engineer,
Assistant Engineer, Overseer, etc. till the project works were
completed. The contention of the petitioner appears to be
that till the project in connection with which he was appointed
as Overseer was completed, the Corporation is bound to
engage him. In other words, the contention is that the
Corporation is not entitled to terminate the contractual
engagement. I am unable to agree with this proposition.
4. It is not in dispute that petitioner had accepted his
engagement with his eyes wide open. He knew that his
engagement was for one year on a consolidated monthly
remuneration. It may be true that the Corporation had
extended his tenure for two more months but it was for the
reason that the Corporation wanted to identify and engage
qualified hands from among its own employees to be
W.P.(C)No.11902 OF 2007
:: 3 ::
appointed as Overseers on working arrangement as could be
seen from Ext.P6. Similarly petitioner cannot be heard to say
that the action of the Corporation is discriminatory since an
Assistant Engineer who was engaged along with is allowed to
continue while Overseers like him have been disengaged.
5. I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by
the petitioners. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly
dismissed.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the dismissal of this writ petition may not stand in the
way of the petitioner to seek further engagement in the
Corporation in future. I do not find any reason why the
Corporation would not consider the request, if any, that may
be made by the petitioner to be engaged as an Overseer in
future, if such an occasion arises.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes