Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
HALLI GOWDA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/03/1989
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)
RANGNATHAN, S.
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
CITATION:
1989 AIR 1117 1989 SCR (1) 936
1989 SCC Supl. (1) 267 JT 1989 (1) 498
1989 SCALE (1)552
ACT:
Statutory Organisations--One set of daily wage employees
cannot be discriminated as against another in the matter of
regularisation of service and grant of time scale pay.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioners who had served the respondent--Corpora-
tion for long periods on daily wage basis prayed for regu-
larisation of services and grant of time scale pay from
their dates of initial appointment on the ground that others
similarly placed had been granted these benefits.
The Court, after noticing that there were discrepancies
in the factual position adopted by the parties,
DIRECTED: The matter to be examined is with reference to
factual position as to when the 19 persons in Annexure ’A’
were initially employed and when they have been regularised
as against the initial employment of each of the petition-
ers. This can be done only by reference to appropriate
records. We direct that a senior officer of the Corporation
shall be named by respondent No. 1 to look into these alle-
gations and at the time the question is examined by such
officer the petitioners shall be given appropriate opportu-
nity of being heard, if asked for through counsel also, and
all relevant documents should be looked into to ascertain
whether the claim of the petitioners that they have been
discriminated against in the facts indicated in their writ
petition particularly with reference to Annexure ’A’ is
correct; and in case it is found that the petitioners have
not been given the benefit which has given to the 19 daily
rated Conductors specified in Annexure ’A’, petitioners may
be conferred the same benefit as has been extended to those
19 persons unless the respondent is able to assign satisfac-
tory and cogent reasons and states as to why petitioners are
not entitled to the same benefit. This would be so on the
footing that regularisation does not require a specified
period of service to have been put in. [939E-H]
JUDGMENT:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1325 of 1987.
937
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
P. Rangaswamy, K.K. Gupta and Capt. Virendera Kumar for
the Petitioners.
K.R. Nagaraja and R.S. Hegde, for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
ORDER
Thirty-two petitioners in this application under Art. 32
of the Constitution are Bus Conductors in the employment of
the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, respondent
No. 1. They have alleged that the respondent-Corporation is
a statutory organisation and is ’State’ within the meaning
of Art. 12. The normal practice prevalent in the Corporation
is to initially appoint Conductors on daily wage basis and
regularise them in due course. According to them, 19 daily
wage Conductors as mentioned in Annexure ’A’ to the petition
were regularised and brought on the time-scale of pay with
effect from the original date of their employment as daily
wage Conductors, while though the petitioners have served
for quite a long period they have not yet been regularised.
They have alleged discrimination and claimed relief on the
basis of Art. 14. They have asked for a direction to the
Transport Corporation to bring them on the time-scale by
regularisation from the date each of them came to be em-
ployed by the Corporation, as stated in Annexure ’B’.
The Corporation in its return to the rule has accepted
the position that it is a statutory body created under s. 3
of the Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950. There is no
challenge to the allegation of the petitioners that initial
appointment is on daily wage basis and as and when regular
vacancies arise the daily rated employees are brought on
time-scale of pay and services are regularised. Paragraph 9
of the counter-affidavit specifically challenged the asser-
tion of the petitioners that 19 similarly placed employees
were confirmed on the date of initial employment on daily
rated basis. The plea in paragraph 9 is as follows:
"The information furnished in Annexure-A
showing that 19 persons who were working in
different divisions have been appointed on
time-scale on the same date is absolutely
wrong and misleading. The petitioners have
sworn
938
false affidavit without making any effort to
verify the factual position. The date of
confirmation in majority of the cases has been
shown in Annexure-A as the date of their
appointment just to prejudice this Court."
Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on
the decision of this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour v.
Union of India & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 122 and an order made on
14th of July, 1988 in Writ Petition No. 8307-11/83 which is
still awaiting final disposal. The facts of the reported
decision were very different. It would be sufficient to
refer to paragraph 2 of the judgment:
"The principal complaint of the petitioners is
that even though many of them have been work-
ing for the last ten years as casual labour-
ers, the wages paid to them are very low and
far less than the salary and allowances paid
to the regular employees of the Posts and
Telegraphs Department belonging to each of the
categories referred to above and secondly no
scheme has been prepared by the Union of India
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
to absorb them regularly in its service and
consequently they have been denied the bene-
fits, such as increments, pension, leave
facilities etc. etc. which are enjoyed by
those who have been recruited regularly. They
allege that they are being exploited by the
Union of India-"
Petitioners have not made these allegations and their
sole grievance is of discrimination on the basis that while
they have not been regularised though they have been serving
for a good number of years--in some cases about 14
years--the 19 persons named in Annexure ’A’ have been regu-
larised from the date of initial employment. It is, there-
fore, not necessary to refer to the decision. The order in
the pending writ application is also on a different set of
facts and, therefore, need not be further referred to.
At the hearing of the writ application, petitioners
relied upon a draft seniority list published by the Corpora-
tion in support of their stand while the Corporation on the
basis of a document appended to the counter-affidavit main-
tained that the particulars were wrong and since the docu-
ment was only at the draft stage and mistakes appearing
therein were yet to be corrected, no reliance can be placed
on the particulars appearing therein and the original record
should be referred to.
939
In view of the pointed question raised by the petition-
ers and the denial in the return, we made an order on
28.2.1989 to the following effect:
"The dispute has arisen before us regarding
the identity of all the persons. The Registrar
General is directed to assign an Officer to
examine the photostat copy of the Original
Record in possession of learned counsel for
the respondents for the purpose of determining
whether there is any discrepancy between that
record and the printed list which has been
furnished before us in relation to the 34
petitioners as well as the 19 employees set
out in Annexure ’A’ annexed to the Writ Peti-
tion."
The report dated 2nd of March, 1989 on the basis of the
printed document and the photostat copies of records made
available at the time of examination to the Officer shows
that there are discrepancies. The original record, however,
is not available in the Court.
It is not disputed before us by counsel for the respond-
ents that in case benefit of regularisation has been con-
ferred on daily rated employees from the date of initial
employment and such benefit has not been extended to the
petitioners, the grievance grounded upon Art. 14 of the
Constitution would be valid. The matter to be examined,
therefore, is with reference to factual position as to when
the 19 persons in Annexure ’A’ were initially employed and
when they have been regularised as against the initial
employment of each of the petitioners. This can be done only
by reference to appropriate records. We direct that a senior
officer of the Corporation shall be named by respondent No..
1 to look into these allegations and at the time the ques-
tion is examined by such officer the petitioners shall be
given appropriate opportunity of being heard, if asked for
through counsel also, and all relevant documents should be
looked into to ascertain whether the claim of the petition-
ers that they have been discriminated against in the facts
indicated in their writ petition particularly with reference
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
to Annexure ’A’ is correct; and in case it is found that the
petitioners have not been given the benefit which has been
given to the 19 daily rated Conductors specified in Annexure
’A’, petitioners may be conferred the same benefit as has
been extended to those 19 persons unless the respondent is
able to assign satisfactory and cogent reasons and states as
to why petitioners are not entitled to the same benefit.
This would be so on the footing that regularisation does not
require a specified period of service to have been put in.
The respondent-
940
Corporation shall designate the authority within two weeks
and the enquiry by him in the manner directed above shall be
completed within three months. On the basis of the report
furnished by such authority the respondent is directed to
take a final decision within two months thereafter.
There shall be no direction as to costs.
H.L.C.
941