Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B Ramachandrachari

Karnataka HC26 Oct 2023WP/17446/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that a Badli worker lacks protection under the Industrial Disputes Act and is not a permanent employee. The Court quashed the Labour Court award set aside a wrongful removal order due to unexplained seven-year delay, confirming the original 1988 punishment.

What did the court decide?

Award of the Labour Court dated 06.06.2011 quashed; order of punishment dated 30.11.1988 confirmed; interim order discharged; interlocutory applications disposed of.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.17446 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION, SUBHASHNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

B. RAMACHANDRACHARI S/O LATE BETTAIAHCHARI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE B.RAMACHANDRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶13

MAMATHA.R. D/O LATE B.RAMACHANDRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

¶14

BOTH R/O RAJJEVNAGAR, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SHEKAR.L., ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DICATING ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.L.Shekar., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶23

The brief facts are these:

¶24

The respondent was a Badli Conductor in the

¶25

establishment of the Corporation. On 25.12.1987, he was conducting the bus bearing No.MEF 982 that was plying on the

¶26

route from Tumkur to Nelamangala. The checking officials found certain irregularities like non-issue of tickets. Hence, he was issued with Articles of charge. The respondent submitted his reply to the Articles of Charge. A personal hearing was held on 04.07.1988, the disciplinary authority found that the charges were proved. Hence, vide order dated 30.11.1988 his name was removed from the list of Badli Conductors.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶28

After a lapse of seven years, the respondent questioned the order of removal by raising a dispute before the Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.79/1995. Upon receipt of the notice, the Corporation filed its counter statement and specifically contended that there was a delay and laches in raising the dispute. The Labour Court on an adjudication of the dispute held that the order of removal is not justified. Hence, the Labour Court vide award dated 03.12.2004 set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and with 40% of the back wages. The Corporation questioned the award of the Labour Court in W.P.No.207/2006. This Court vide order dated 07.03.2011 allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the award of the Labour Court and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration.

¶29

After remand, the Corporation - led evidence and examined one officer and got marked one document Ex.M1. The respondent examined himself and got marked documents Exs.W1 to W4. The Labour Court vide award dated 06.06.2011 held that the order of removal is not justified, directed payment of all consequential benefits only for purpose of pensionary

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶32

benefits and denied complete back wages. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶34

respondent have urged several contentions.

¶35

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that B.Ramachandrachari was a Badli Conductor, he is not a permanent employee of the Corporation and hence he would not enjoy the status of a permanent employee. She argued by saying that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act do not apply to the Badli worker. It is also contended on behalf of the Corporation that the Labour Court has erred in concluding that the dispute is not stale. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied on the following decisions.

¶36

1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER V/S. S.G. KOTTURAPPA AND ANOTHER - REPORTED IN (2005) 3 SCC 409.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶39

2. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT

¶40

CORPORATION V/S. T.V. ANANDAPPA -

¶41

REPORTED IN (2009) 17 SCC 473.

¶42

3. PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, AND ANOTHER

¶43

reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1.

¶44

By way of answer to this contention, it has been urged on behalf of the respondent that the Corporation has not taken the contention about the status of the respondent as a Badli worker either before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.207/2006. Learned counsel for the respondent argued by saying that for the first time, the Corporation is agitating this contention in the present Writ Petition. Further, it is urged that there is no delay and laches in raising a dispute. Lastly, it is contended that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶47

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require

¶48

reiteration. The issue revolves around the status of a Badli worker and the delay and laches in raising the dispute.

¶49

The following points would arise for consideration:

¶50

Whether the Badli worker is entitled to the protection under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act?

¶51

Whether the Labor Court justified in concluding that there is no delay and laches in raising the dispute and thus the dispute is not stale?

¶52

Whether the Award of the Labour Court require interference by this Court?

¶53

POINT No.1 - The first point relates to the status of the

¶54

Badli worker and the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. This point is plain enough and the same can be answered simply. Suffice it to note that the respondent was a Badli Conductor/ worker in the establishment of the Corporation and his name was removed from the list of Badli Conductors back in the year 1988 on proved misconduct.

¶55

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶56

Strangely, he raised the dispute after a lapse of almost seven years.

¶57

It may be noted that in KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER V/S. S.G.KOTTURAPPA AND ANOTHER, the Apex Court extenso referred to the conditions of services and the procedure of appointment of Badlis i.e., Badli worker has held that the Badli workers have no legal right to continue in service and were not even entitled to the protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Apex Court has held that the terms and conditions of employment of a Badli worker may have a statutory flavor but the same would not mean that it is not otherwise contractual. So long as a worker remains a Badli worker, he does not enjoy a status. His services are not protected by reason of any provisions of the statute. He does not hold a civil post. A dispute as regards purported wrongful termination of services can be raised only if such termination takes place in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute governing the services. Services of a temporary employee or a Badli worker can be

¶58

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶59

terminated upon compliance with the contractual or statutory requirements.

¶60

Furthermore, in BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION V/S. T.V.ANANDAPPA - (2009) 17 SCC 473, the Apex court placing reliance on KOTTURAPPA ’s case has held that Badli worker is not entitled to the protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and concluded that the Labor Court should not have adjudicated the dispute and the reference to the Labor Court was incompetent.

¶61

In this case, the respondent was appointed as a Badli Conductor and a disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him for the misconduct. On 30.11.1988, an order was passed to remove his name from the list of Badli Conductors. The Apex Court has settled the law about the status of the Badli worker and his protection under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act back in the year 2005. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the respondent is not entitled to protection under the provisions of the I.D Act and the reference of the Dispute to the Labour Court is incompetent.

¶62

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶63

POINT No.2 - The second point relates to the delay and laches. Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that the Labour Court has erred in deciding the dispute. She argued by saying that there was an inordinate delay of seven years in raising the dispute. The Labour Court ought to have rejected the claim on the grounds of delay and laches. She drew the attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1.

¶64

By way of answer to this contention, learned counsel Sri.L.Shekar., submits that delay in raising the dispute was not so culpable to deny the relief to the worker. He argued by saying that the Labour Court was justified in condoning the delay.

¶65

The contention about delay and laches are considered with care. The Labour Court condoned the delay placing reliance on the admission of the management witness to hold

¶66

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶67

that the respondent had filed an appeal against the order of removal. The Labour Court erred in placing reliance on the stray admission made by the management witness about filing of an appeal. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that he had filed an appeal before the competent authority hence there is a delay. But there is nothing on record to show that the appeal was filed. In the claim statement, the respondent has not pleaded that he had filed an appeal against removal and such contention was taken by him for the first time in the cross-examination. The evidence falls far short of establishing the same.

¶68

Upon this point it runs as follows: - Apparently, the name of the respondent was removed from the list of Badli Conductors back in the year 1988 and he raised the dispute after a lapse of seven years. There is an inordinate delay. There is nothing more than this in the case, and there is nothing to show that at any time the respondent had filed an appeal. Hence, the argument about the justification of condonation of delay and laches must necessarily fail.

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶71

Furthermore, the Labour Court has erred in condoning the delay; at the same time, the same is against the decision of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in PRABHAKAR’ s case has held as under:

¶72

"42.6. In contrast, in those cases where there was no agitation by the workman against his termination, the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay or laches remain unexplained, it would be presumed that he had waived his right or acquiesced into the act of termination and, therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it had become stale and was not an "existing dispute." In such circumstances, the appropriate Government can refuse to make reference. In the alternative, the Labour Court/ Industrial Court can also hold that there is no "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be granted.

¶73

44. To summarize, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of

¶74

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶75

industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed since unless there is a satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after a long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry."

¶76

As already noted above, the name of the respondent was removed from the list of Badli conductors back in the year 1988 but he raised a dispute after a lapse of seven years. The dispute had become stale as of the date of the adjudication hence the Labour Court ought to have rejected the claim on the grounds of delay and laches.

¶77

The result, therefore, in my order, is that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my view, the award passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable in law. In any view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The Award of the Labour Court is otherwise erroneous and unjust.

¶78

13 -

¶79

NC: 2023:KHC:38027 WP No. 17446 of 2012

¶80

Accordingly, the points framed by this Court are answered.

¶81

For the reasons stated above, the Award of the Labour Court is liable to be quashed and it is quashed.

¶82

The Writ of certiorari is ordered. The Award dated 06.06.2011 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.79/1995 vide Annexure-H is quashed. The order of punishment dated 30.11.1988 is confirmed.

¶83

6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶84

In view of the confirmation of the punishment order, the interim order granted by this Court stands discharged. In view

¶85

of the disposal of the Writ Petition, all the pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

¶86

MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B Ramachandrachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B Ramachandrachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. H. C. Lokesh Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Yashwanth G E

G Mahadevamma Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Sri S Shankarappa Vs M/S Indian Telephone Industries

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri. M. S. Rangaswamy

Karnataka State Road Vs R C Venkateshagowda