HONNAYYA Vs. K S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are ex-employees of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short), have presented these petitions questioning the legality of the order terminating the services of each of the petitioners on the ground that they had been made in violation of the mandatory requirements of section 25-F of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 ('the Act' for short).

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The name of each of the petitioner had been included in a list called 'Badli list' prepared by the concerned officers of the Corporation. The list so prepared was for the purpose of utilising their services on days on which regular employees of the Corporation remained absent by taking leave. Accordingly the petitioners, whose names were included in the Badli List were being given appointments only on days on which the regular employees were on leave. By each of the orders, impugned in these petitions, the names of the petitioners were deleted from the Badli List on ground of unsuitability. Prior to the order of termination none of the petitioners had put in 240 days of service in any of the years. The contention of the petitioners, however, is that their cases fall within the scope of section 25-B(l) of the Act as they had worked on all days in a year on which they were given work and as the work was not given on other days for no fault of theirs, notwithstanding the intervening period on which they had not worked, they must be deemed to be in continuous service.

(3.) As against this, the contention of the Corporation is that the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in Badli List did not mean that they became employees of the Corporation. It was only for the purpose of providing them appointment on day to day basis against leave vacancies as is evident from Regulation 16 of the K.S.R.T.C. Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1968. As they had not worked for 240 days in any year, they did not come within the purview of section 25-B(2) and as they were not in employment of the Corporation on the days on which they, had not worked, they were not governed by section 25-B(l) also. Therefore, section 25- F was not at all attracted to their cases.