The Government of Tamil Nadu and another vs A. Vamadevan and another

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—This writ petition is filed by the Government and the State Port Officer, challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu

Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. The first respondent herein was a regular employee of the Tamil Nadu Government. He was registered with the

Employment Exchange and was appointed through the same. After his appointment on 11.2.1982, he worked with the Government for two years.

Thereafter, as many as 13 persons were deputed on Foreign Service basis to the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation, which had undertaken the

task of ferrying the passengers between Kanyakumari and the Vivekananda Memorial. It seems that ultimately because of some disputes the

Poompuhar Shipping Corporation had to terminate the said transportation task. They therefore wanted to send back the whole staff and sought the

direction of the Government. It seems by the letter dated 17.11.1984 bearing No.57929/F2/84-1, the Commissioner and Secretary to

Government advised the State Port Officer that the said 13 persons who were deputed to the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation should be taken

back and should be absorbed in the Government service and for that purpose the Port Officer was directed to absorb the first respondent herein in

its service. Inspite of doing that the Port Officer seems to have straight away requested the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation to terminate the

services of Vamadevan, probably because he was the junior most. Now, acting on that the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation seems to have

terminated the services of Vamadevan, the first respondent herein.

Therefore, the said Vamadevan filed a writ petition, which was duly transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tamil Nadu

Administrative Tribunal took a view that the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation has no authority, as a matter of fact, to terminate the services of the

petitioner because the petitioner was not its employee and was in fact the employee of Tamil Nadu Government. He was merely on deputation and

as such a deputationist could not be terminated by Poompuhar Shipping Corporation. The Tribunal also took note of the afore mentioned letter

dated 17.11.1984 and came to the conclusion that the Port Officer, contrary to the letter sent to him by the Commissioner and Secretary to the

Government, could not have requested the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation to terminate the services of the first respondent A. Vamadevan.

Taking that view, the application was allowed and the order dated 22.11.1984 issued by the State Port Officer was set aside.

In the first place, we must point out that the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Limited, from whom the termination letter dated 7.12.1984

proceeded, which was the apple of discord is itself not made a party to this petition for the reasons best known. In fact, Poompuhar Shipping

Corporation was very much a party before the Tribunal. We do not know as to why the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation has not been joined as

a party to the present petition. The petition must fail on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Even otherwise, Poompuhar Shipping

Corporation being the organisation from whom the last termination order proceeded, was bound to be joined as a party and was rightly joined as a

party in the initial writ petition filed by A. Vamadevan. Under such circumstances, not joining the said Corporation as a party to the present petition

is, in our opinion, fatal.

The Tribunal, in our opinion, has taken an absolutely correct view for the simple reason that the Government itself was of the opinion that the

said Vamadevan was bound to be absorbed, which is clear from the letter dated 17.11.1984. We now wonder as to how the Government can

take a diametrically opposite stand to such letter in this writ petition. Very interestingly, the writ petition is being argued by the Government

Advocate both on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu as well as the Port Trust Officer, when we actually see that the interests of the two are

contrary to each other. Be that as it may, even on merits the Government has no case, for the simple reason that the employee was a regularly

appointed employee and his services could not have been directed to be terminated by the Port Officer and such a direction could not have been

issued by the Port Officer to the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is without any

merits and is bound to be dismissed.

Learned Government Pleader earnestly argued that inspite of this order the first respondent herein has not joined. The respondent claims to the

contrary. He may join now and the Government Pleader also showed his readiness to get the respondent into service by allowing him to join.

However, the question of payment between the date of the order of the Tribunal and the first respondent''s joining date would be decided

separately. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.