MANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERSS FEDERATION :THE MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in these special leave petitions being S. L.P. (C) Nos. 19982-19983 of 1997 and S. L. P. (C) Nos. 22370-22371 of 1997. By consent of learned counsel of the contesting parties, the appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has filed the first two appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 19982 and 19983 of 1997 being aggrieved by the common judgment and order rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeals Nos. 8635 and 8491 of 1996, while the other two appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 22370 and 22371 of 1997 are filed by the State of Karnataka, also aggrieved by the aforesaid common judgment and order in the very same two writ appeals. The appellants have the common cause of complaint against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, while the respondent-KSRTC Staff and Workers' Federation, which is the common respondent in all these appeals, is the only contesting respondent, being the original writ petitioner whose writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge of the High Court and which judgment came to be confirmed by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. We shall refer to the appellant-Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the original respondent No. 1 in the writ petition, as the 'Corporation', the appellant State of Karnataka in other two appeals, being original Respondent No. 2 in the writ petition as the 'State', while the contesting Union, respondent No. 1 in these appeals in writ petition as the 'Union' for the sake of convenience in the latter part of this judgment. The question involved in these appeals is as to whether the order passed by the State on 10th September, 1993 and the consequential order passed by the Corporation on 21st September, 1993 were legal and valid. Both these orders came to be set aside by the learned single Judge in the writ petition filed by the Union, and as noted above, the said order of the learned single Judge came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in the impugned common judgment. The order dated 10th September, 1993 of the State instructing the Corporation to withdraw the Pay Roll Check-off Facility given to the Union and the consequential order dated 21st September, 1993 issued by the Corporation withdrawing this facility came to be challenged on various grounds in the writ petition which, as noted above, succeeded in the hierarchy of proceedings before the Karnataka High Court. The short question, therefore, which falls for our consideration is whether the impugned orders of the State and the consequential order issued by the Corporation could be sustained in law

(2.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions centring round the aforesaid controversy between the parties, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts leading to these proceedings. INTRODUCTORY FACTS:

(3.) The Corporation is formed under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (for short the 'Corporation Act'), for providing efficient, economical and properly coordinated transport services to the travelling public and the KSRTC has framed Service Regulations by deriving powers under Section 45 (2) (c) of the Corporation Act. At the relevant time the Union was the sole bargaining agent for the employees of the Corporation. On 11th December, 1987 a referendum was held to choose the collective bargaining agent on behalf of the employees of the Corporation. The Union was elected as the recognised agent with 53% of the votes polled by way of official memorandum dated 24th December, 1987. The Corporation thus granted recognition to the Union as sole bargaining agent. Consequent on choosing the Union as the collective bargaining agent, a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 18(1) read with Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act') was entered into by the Corporation and the Union on 28th July, 1988. Under this settlement it was agreed between the parties that the Corporation shall deduct the subscription of the members of the Unions affiliated to the respondent Federation from their wages on obtaining individual authorisations. The said settlement was agreed to be followed till the recognition accorded to the Federation lasted or until both the parties terminated the terms by mutual consent earlier. This system was popularly known as Pay Roll Check-off Facility. A Memorandum of Settlement regarding the wages payable to the employees was also entered into on 1st January, 1988 between the Corporation and the Union. The settlement was for a period of four commencing from 1st January, 1988 till 31st December, 1991. As the recognition given to the Federation had come to an end, election had to be conducted again to choose the sole bargaining agent by way of referendum. The Union emerged successful as the sole bargaining agent and was chosen as such. The Corporation by its order dated 16th July, 1992 accorded recognition to the Union as the sole bargaining agent as per the Memorandum. It is not in dispute between the parties that as four years' period expired with effect from 16th July, 1996 a fresh referendum had to be held for finding out as to whether the Union still commanded majority membership of workmen so as to be re-designated as a recognised Union. But the said referendum has still not been held because of writ petitions pending in the High Court and the Stay granted therein, with which we are not concerned in the present proceedings.