MANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE Vs. M BORAIAH:SHEIKH ABDUL KHADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The employer - Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation - created under a State Act entitled the Transport Corporation Act of 1950 ('Corporation Act' for short) is in appeal by special leave and the common decision of a Division Bench of the High Court which held that termination of employees while on probation on ground of unsuitability amounted to retrenchment and for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Disputes Act' for short), the termination is bad, is challenged.

(2.) As per Rule 7 made under Section 45 of the Corporation Act, direct recruits are to be on probation for two years and such probation can be extended. The employer terminated the employment of some of the employees during the initial period of probation and of some others during the extended period on the ground of unsatisfactory service. Thereupon an industrial dispute was raised questioning the legality of their termination and the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10 of the Disputes Act. The Labour Court held, overruling the stand of the employer that Section 25-F of the Disputes Act had no application, to the effect that the discharge was invalid. The employer Corporation came before the High Court challenging the Award. A learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the order of discharge amounted to retrenchment as defined in Section 25-F of the Disputes Act and those orders were bad for non-compliance of Section 25-F. The employer Corporation challenged the decision of the single Judge before a Division Bench and the Division Bench by the impugned judgment upheld the decision of the learned single Judge.

(3.) Admittedly the employees were probationers at the time of discharge from service. There is no dispute that as, a condition precedent to discharge the requirements of Section 25-F of the Disputes Act had not been complied with. If the discharge of the employees would amount to retrenchment, appellant's counsel does not dispute that the order of discharge would be bad for non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Disputes Act. The only question for considering these appeals, therefore, is whether the discharge of the employees from service amounted to retrenchment.