Allowed

Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Chandrashekaraiah

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2023WP/7087/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court examined an Industrial Tribunal award granting time scale benefits to a regularized former daily-wage conductor. The court held that the claim was stale due to a ten-year delay and erred in granting benefits from 1997 instead of 2002.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal was quashed and the Writ Petition was allowed.

Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:44044 WP No. 7087 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.7087 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE, BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

CHANDRASHEKARAIAH MAJOR IN AGE, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC AND BMTC UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION, NO.23, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 054. …RESPONDENT

¶13

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

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

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:44044 WP No. 7087 of 2020

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Smt.Renuka.H.R., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶20

Emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 20.01.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that the notice to the respondent is served. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶21

3. The brief facts are these:

¶22

The respondent was engaged as a Badli Conductor in the erstwhile BTS Division on temporary basis till 30.06.1994. On 30.06.1994, he was relieved from the post as his engagement of service was purely on temporary basis. On 31.05.1997, a decision was taken to regularize the services of the daily wage conductors subject to the conditions specified in the order. The order clearly indicated that they are required to be taken as job trainee as and when the vacancy arises. On 15.09.1998, the respondent along with other daily wage conductors, were placed on job training subject to the terms and conditions specified in the order of appointment dated:15.09.1998. The respondent submitted an affidavit and reported to duty on

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:44044 WP No. 7087 of 2020

¶25

14.09.1998. On 13.11.2000, he was brought on probation after completion of two years of training period. On 02.05.2001, the services of the respondent was confirmed with effect from 13.11.2002.

¶26

As things stood thus, after a lapse of ten years, the respondent raised a dispute claiming to extend him the benefit of time scale of pay and other benefits from 21.03.1994. The dispute came to be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.258/2011. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated:07.07.2017 partly allowed the claim petition by directing the Corporation to grant benefit of time scale of pay to the respondent after completion of 180 days of service from 31.05.1997. 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.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶28

The following points would arise for consideration:

¶29

(1) Whether the Industrial Tribunal is justified in condoning the delay?

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:44044 WP No. 7087 of 2020

¶32

(2) Whether the Industrial Tribunal is justified in directing the Corporation to grant the benefit of time scale of pay to the respondent?

¶33

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent Chandrashekaraiah was engaged as a Badli Conductor in the erstwhile BTS Division on temporary basis till 30.06.1994. It is not in dispute that it was only a temporary basis post. A decision was taken to regularize the services of the daily wage Conductors only in the year 1997. Strangely, he raised a dispute after lapse of almost ten years to extend him the benefit of time scale of pay and other benefits from 21.03.1994.

¶34

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Corporation in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that there is an inordinate delay of almost ten years in raising the dispute. She railed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law regarding delay and laches.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:44044 WP No. 7087 of 2020

¶37

The issue revolves around the delay and laches and also extension of benefit of time scale of pay. It is not in dispute that the respondent was engaged as a Badli Conductor only on temporary basis, subject to the condition that engagement is till 30.06.1994. It is also not in dispute that his services were confirmed with effect from 13.11.2002. Strangely, he raised the dispute after a lapse of almost ten years. In the claim statement, he had contended that right from the date of his confirmation of service, he made sincere efforts to get the order of re-fixation of pay scale, seniority, promotion, etc., by making number of representations. But the Corporation did not consider the same. The Corporation filed a counter statement and specifically contended that the dispute is raised after lapse of seventeen years and no reasons are shown for the delay in making the claim statement and hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition on the grounds of delay and laches.

¶38

One of the point for reference relates to delay and laches. The Tribunal concluded that the Workman has good case on merits, hence the claim petition cannot be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches and accordingly answered point No.1 in favor of the workman. This is unsustainable in law. The

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44044 WP No. 7087 of 2020

¶40

Tribunal recorded a finding that the delay would not be a hurdle to advance justice on substantial cause. The Tribunal ought to have rejected the reference only on the grounds of delay and laches. Furthermore, the reasoning and the findings accorded to condone the delay are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in PRABHAKAR' s case. Therefore, in my view, the reference ought to have been rejected on the ground that it was a stale claim.

¶41

Apart from the grounds of delay and laches, what was required to be considered is that the respondent was appointed as a daily-wage employee and he was relieved his duty in the year 1994 itself. He got re-entry in the Corporation on humanitarian grounds in terms of the Government Order. Suffice it to note that the Corporation sought permission from State Government to regularize the services of the daily-wage employees who were serving the Corporation. The State Government accorded permission and permitted the Corporation to regularize the service of daily-wagers, subject to the terms and conditions specified therein. Therefore, the Corporation vide order dated:31.05.1997 issued an order calling upon the candidates to accept the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions specified therein. One of

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:44044 WP No. 7087 of 2020

¶44

the conditions is that their regularization would be subject to availability of vacancy in the Corporation. Therefore, as and when the vacancy arose, the candidates in the list prepared by the Corporation in respect of the daily-wagers were appointed by placing them on training for a period of two years. Upon completion of job training, they were placed on probation for a period of two years. Thereafter, subject to availability of vacancy, their services were confirmed. Hence, from the events it can be safely concluded that the respondent could get an entry into the Corporation only by way of humanitarian consideration based on the permission granted by the State Government to regularize their services. The respondent was appointed as a job-trainee subject to terms and conditions specified in the order of appointment and he was paid stipend as per the order dated:14.09.1998. Hence, to extend the benefit of time scale from 31.05.1997 is erroneous.

¶45

Furthermore, the Industrial Tribunal is not justified in extending the benefit of time scale on completion of 180 days of service from the date on which the respondent was appointed by placing reliance on Industrial Truce agreement, 1962. The entry of the respondent into the Corporation is by way of a concision made by the State Government for

¶46

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44044 WP No. 7087 of 2020

¶47

regularizing the services of daily wage employees purely on humanitarian consideration. Hence, the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of time scale of pay from 31.05.1997. He was placed on job training with effect from 14.09.1998 and the terms and conditions as regard to his payment was also specified in the order dated:15.09.1998. The respondent submitted an undertaking accepting the terms and conditions of the order placing him as a job trainee, therefore, he is bound by his undertaking and not entitled for the claim made by him.

¶48

As already noted above, the respondent was only a BadliConductor and he was brought on probation. After completion of two years of training period, his service was confirmed in the year 2002 with effect from 13.11.2002. When the services were confirmed in the year 2002, he cannot claim the benefit. In my view, the respondent is not entitled to claim the benefit of time scale of pay and other benefits from 21.03.1994, because his services were confirmed only on 13.11.2002. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Tribunal.

¶49

For the reasons stated above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the grounds of delay and laches and also on merits of the case are erroneous. Hence, the award passed by

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:44044 WP No. 7087 of 2020

¶52

the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶53

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:07.07.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.258/2011 vide Annexure-K is quashed.

¶54

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

TKN/MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Chandrashekaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Chandrashekaraiah

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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri H S Nath

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mahesh Kumar

Sri R. Biradar Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs K v Krishnamurthy

Essae-Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Labour Commissioner