PUSHPALATHA Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 23-8-1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 25581 of 1990. Learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner does not fall within the ratio prescribed under Section 19 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the post of Supervisor.

(2.) Seven vehicles belonging to the ex-employer of the appellant were acquired under the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act prescribed a ratio of 0.1 for each vehicle acquired under the Act in respect of the post of Supervisor. According to the case of the appellant she was working under her ex-employer M/s.V.T. Raibagi Motor Service, Gajendragad, as Supervisor-cum-clerk. The ratio prescribed for the post of Supervisory staff and Managers and also for Ministerial and Secretarial staff was 0.1 per vehicle. Section 19(3) of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10203 of 1977. Learned Advocate General appearing for the K.S.R.T.C. made a submission that even though sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act prescribed a ratio of 0.1 for each vehicle, in respect of the post of Supervisory staff and Mangers and also Ministerial and Secretarial Staff, one post of Supervisor was provided if 5 vehicles were acquired. On the basis of this submission, the Division Bench held thus;

(3.) Learned Single Judge has viewed the aforesaid Decision of Division Bench as incorporating the concession made by the Jearned Advocate General. But it is not so. Learned Advocate General had made a submission that if five vehicles of the ex- employer were acquired, one employee falling under each category i.e., category Nos.2 and 3 from the staff of the ex-employer was absorbed in the service of the Corporation. There was an appeal preferred before the Supreme Court against the aforesaid Decision of this Court by the Writ petitioner M.S. SHIVANANDA - and the Decision of the Supreme Court is reported A.l.R. 1980 S.C.77. Regarding" Section 19(3} of the Act, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Decision, has stated thus: