SHIVARAM SHETTY R Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions the following common question of law arises for consideration : Whether Section 91 A inserted by Act 40 of 1981 into the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) which provides for transfer of employees of a corporation to a corresponding post in any other corporation or in any local authority constituted or deemed to have been constituted under any law, is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature ?

(2.) The facts of these petitions, in brief, are as follow: Petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 12506 and 12507/84 were employees of the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation which was originally constituted under Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and now continuing to function under the Act. In all other Writ Petitions the petitioners were employees of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore constituted under the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and now continuing to function under the provisions of the Act. The Act, enacted as a common law for the whole State providing for constitution and organisation of the Municipal Corporations, come into force on the First day of June, 1977. Section 421 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of the employees of each of the Corporations. However employment under each of the Corporation is separate and the power to make appointments is vested in the Corporation or authorities of the Corporation concerned. There is on common service for all Corporations constituted under the Act. Section 91A was inserted in the Act by Karnataka Act 40 of 1981 which reads :

(3.) The main grounds on which the constitutional validity of Section 91A is challenged are as follow : Each of the Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Act is a separate and distinct body. The petitioners, on their own volition, have joined the services of a particular corporation. There is relationship of master and servant between the corporation concerned and the petitioner. The State Legislature has no power to enact a provision conferring power on the Government to transfer the employees of one corporation to another or to any other local authority as it would amount to compelling the petitioners and persons who are similarly placed, to serve a different master. Such a compulsion would also be hit by Article 23 of the Constitution.