LAWS(KAR)-1985-3-49

SHANKARAIAH Vs. K S R T C

Decided On March 12, 1985
SHANKARAIAH Appellant
V/S
K.S.R.T.C. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner an ex-employee of the Kannataka State Road Transport Corporation has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order by which his services were terminated.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows: By order dated 6-1-1983 the petitioner was taken as a badli conductor in the services of the Corporation. By the impugned order dated 3-12-1984 Annexure-A his services were terminated on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice and 15 days wages as retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act for short). The petitioner questions the validity of the said order on the following grounds: Mandatory conditions prescribed under Sec. 25-F namely assigning reasons for retrenchment and giving an intimation to the State Government have not been complied with. In my opinion the contention is untenable for the order of termination does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of that expression as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in view of the introduction of sub-clause (bb) into the said clause. In view of sub-clause (bb) which was introduced into the Act by Act 49/84 which came into force from 19th August 1984, the termination of services of a workman in terms of the stipulation contained in the order of appointment does not amount to retrenchment. The impugned order reads:

(3.) A Badli worker would be eligible for such day today appointment as long as his name figures in the list of Badli workers. From the first paragraph of the impugned order, it is clear that as the petitioner had not yet been appointed on the basts of the select list his services were utilised as a bac'li conductor. Therefore, the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated if his work was found unsatisfactory and he was found unsuitable for the post. That is what has been done by the impugned order. For these reasons, I find no ground to entertain the petition. The petition is rejected.