DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BAGALKOT DIVISION Vs. SADASHIVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation represented by its Divisional Controller is common in all these appeals. Though respondents in all these cases are different, common questions of law and facts are involved. It is in this regard the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have passed common judgments. Hence, these appeals are taken up for disposing of them by a common judgment.

(2.) ALL the respondents herein were the Badali employees working under the appellant -corporation since 1976. They were retrenched on different dates in the year 1980 and 1982. Respondents i.e., Devendra was retrenched on 26.12.1980, Shivanagouda on 28.05.1982, Krishnaji on 31.05.1982, Mallanagouda on 31.05.1982, Sadashiv on 31.05.1982 and Mallappa on 30.05.1982 respectively. They were retrenched because they were purely badali workers. The appellant suo - motu passed an order to reinstate all these respondents vide Circular dated 01.10.1986. The said circular dated 01.10.1986 was issued consequent upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Govindaraju Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 1986 AIR(SC) 1680 Respondent Devendra was reinstated on 30.06.1987, Shivanagouda on 10.12.1987, Krishnaji on 25.03.1987, Mallanagouda during the year 1987, Sadashiv on 11.04.1987 and Mallappa on 27.02.1988 respectively. The reinstatement was done as per the DEO No.11/2003 and whereas, Devendra was reinstated vide DEO No.516/2003.

(3.) ON 28.02.2007, separate Show -cause notices were given to all the respondents herein calling upon them as to why the service benefits extended to them vide Circular dated 01.10.1986 be not withdrawn on the ground that earlier circular dated 01.10.1986 had been withdrawn vide Ex.P11. A serious allegation was made against them that they had misrepresented the concerned officer in NWKRTC that circular dated 01.10.1986 was in force for all practical purpose and thus they had obtained the benefit by misrepresenting facts. As against the show -cause notice dated 28.02.2007, all the respondents herein had given separate reply vide reply dated 30.03.2007. Based on the reply given by the respondents, NWKRTC took a decision calling upon them to refund alleged excess amount paid to them from 01.01.2003 to 31.01.2007. The quantum of amount to be refunded by them is indicated in the order dated 03.04.2007 passed in DEO Nos.106, 104, 111 of 2007. Being aggrieved by the said order passed on 03.04.2007 without giving an opportunity of being heard, respondents herein chose to file separate suits in O.S.Nos.74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84 and 88 of 2007 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Bagalkot. Their main ground is that, Corporation could not have passed an order calling upon them to refund the amount without holding a valid enquiry as contemplated under law. The suit was contested by the defendant -corporation on various grounds contending inter alia amongst others that the very suits of the plaintiffs was not maintainable, more particularly, in the light of inhibition found under Section 9 of CPC. Following separate issues came to be framed in the suit filed by the respondents herein.