SHARANAPPA SAJJAN S/O SRI. SOMAPPA SAJJAN Vs. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD BANGALORE-560027 AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. KOAD BANGALORE-560027

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER responded to an advertisement issued by the respondent -Road Transport Corporation on 13.1.1982 inviting applications to fill up the post of Conductor, culminating in an appointment as a Conductor on casual/temporary basis w.e.f. 10.2.1982, where after was brought on probation w.e.f. 13.3.1985 and confirmed in service on 2.5.1987. The Track Union espoused the petitioner's cause that having been appointed against a substantive vacancy the appointment as casual/temporary conductor w.e.f. 10.2.1982 was illegal, initiated conciliation proceeding under Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, for short 'ID Act' leading to a failure report, whence the State government by order dt. 8.10.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, registered as IDA 93/99. Parties having submitted their respective pleadings and regard being had to the plea of the respondent -employer that there was an inordinate delay in raising the dispute, the Industrial Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties and their witnesses and taking on record the documents, by award dt. 7.8.2010 held that the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the inordinate delay in raising the dispute in the year 1999, though the cause of action arose on 2/5/1987, and declined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, rejected the petition. Hence this petition.

(2.) SRI . V.S. Naik, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the delay, if any, was required to be condoned since it was the right of the petitioner to claim deemed confirmation to the post of conductor on being appointed against a subsisting vacancy coupled with the fact that the petitioner was driven to file applications under the Right to Information Act and secured necessary particulars, Exs.W1 and W2, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the petition.

(3.) PETITION devoid of merit is rejected.