Karnataka High Court
Santosh K Menasinkai vs The Management Of Nekrtc on 18 August, 2014
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
WRIT APPEAL No.100369/2014 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN
Santosh K Menasinkai
S/o Kuberappa Menasinkai
Aged about 31 years
R/o Savadi, Taluk Ron
Gadag District.
.. Appellant
(By Sri Praveen P Tarikar, Adv.)
And:
The Management of NEKRTC
Rep by its Divisional Controller
Bellary Division, Bellary.
.. Respondent
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 2/12/2013 PASSED IN
W.P.No.81925/2013 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, RAM MOHAN REDDY.J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant's name when included in the list of Trainee Conductors in the respondent/Public Transport Corporation was alleged to have impersonated as a Checking Inspector and checked the tickets of passengers travelling in the bus belonging to the respondent, based upon which, a complaint when lodged before the jurisdictional police, a case was registered. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated by issuing charge sheet, domestic enquiry, held extending an opportunity of hearing and a report by the Enquiry Officer holding the charges proved which was followed by the order dated 31.10.2011 of competent Authority removing the name of the appellant from the list of trainee conductors.
2. Appellant instituted a petition before the Labour Court, Hubli under Section 10(4-A) of the 3 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 raising an industrial dispute over the said removal registered as KID No.25/2012. In that proceeding, respondent/Road Transport Corporation resisted the claim by filing statement of objections. Labour Court, Hubli on appreciation of the material on record and the evidence both oral and documentary though held the charge proved, nevertheless observed that appellant was a `Corporation Servant' entitled to benefit of Section 33(2)(b) of I.D. Act since the respondent/Road Transport Corporation did not obtain prior approval of Industrial Tribunal in ID No.148/2005, a dispute over charter of demands applicable to all Corporation Servants, and by award dated 9.8.2012 allowed KID No.25/2012 in part, set aside the order of removal dated 31.10.2011 and directed the respondent to include the name of appellant in the selection list within one month from the date of publication of the award, without continuity of service, back wages and other consequential benefits. 4
3. Respondent/Road Transport Corporation preferred WP No.81925/2013 whence a learned Single Judge by order dated 2.12.2013 allowed the petition, set aside the award of the Labour Court and declared that the appellant was disentitled to any relief. Hence, this intra court appeal by the trainee conductor.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the pleadings and examined the order of the learned Single Judge and the award of the Labour Court.
5. Indisputably, appellant was called upon to undergo training as a conductor when his name was included in the selected list of conductors. Sub Regulation (1) of Regulation 10 of the KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulation (for short `C and R Regulations') disentitles a person in the select list to appointment to a vacant post of conductor. Inotherwords, appellant's name though found in the selected list, is not a Corporation Servant entitled to an order of appointment to a vacant 5 post of conductor. Appellant was directed to report for training programme. On his failure to report for training is liable to have his name removed from the list of conductors on training in terms of Regulation 12(2) of the Regulations. Therefore, appellant cannot claim a right to an appointment to the vacant post of conductor before successful completion of training as required by `C & R Regulations'. In the absence of an order of appointment to the vacant post of conductor, appellant did not fall within the definition of the term `Corporation Servant' under the KSRTC Servants (C&D) Regulations, 1971. Appellant being a trainee conductor, therefore, is not a `corporation servant'. It is needless to state that if the appellant is not a `corporation servant' is not a workman, hence not entitled to a relief under the I.D.Act, which aspect is not considered by the Labour Court.
In our considered opinion, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant is disentitled to an order 6 to restore his name in the select list though not in many words does not call for interference.
Appeal devoid of merit is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE Bkm