MUNISWAMY GOWDA H Vs. MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants who are employees of the respondent-Corporation filed Writ Petitions challenging the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them under the provisions of karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) mainly on the ground that the said Regulations were non existent, void being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 13b of the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called as the '1946 Act' ). It was submitted that the Regulations allegedly framed under Section 45 (2) (c) of the Road Transport Corporation act, 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act) were neither reasonable nor fair. The appellants prayed for issuance of directions prohibiting the respondents, their agents, servants and others acting on their behalf from taking any action against them under the regulation or in pursuance of the endorsement issued to them. In support of their submissions the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in case of the Pandavapura sakkare Kharkane Ltd v. The Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore ILR1996 kar 2069. It was submitted that as the Full Bench had specifically over-ruled the earlier division Bench Judgment of this Court, in K. V. R. Shetty v. Secretary to Government, Home department, Karnataka and Others (1980-LLJ-265), the Regulations being non existent, could not be made the basis for initiating the disciplinary action against them. The submissions did not find favour with the Learned Single Judge who dismissed the Writ Petitions of the appellants vide order impugned in these appeals.

(2.) IT may be noticed that the respondent-Corporation was created under the Provisions of the road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950) and prior to its formation, the nationalised Transport Services in the former State of Mysore were directly run by the department of the State Government, known as the Mysore Government Road Transport department (M. G. R. T. D. ). At that time, for the residents of City of Bangalore, buses were operated by Company known as Bangalore Transport Company. After the nationalisation of the company on October 1, 1956, its management was placed under a separate unit of M. G. R. T. D. which was known as Bangalore Transport Service' Similarly, some areas now forming part of state of Karnataka which were earlier the parts of Madras, Bombay and Hyderabad had their own transport services. The M. G. R. T. D. had a set of Certified Standing Orders under the 1946 act. The B. T. S. also had its separate Standing Orders. On reorganisation of the States, the units of the National Transport Services in the interest asreas also came under the control of grating a m. G. R. T. D. In 1961 the entire transport business was taken over by the Corporation constituted under Sec. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act of 1950 ). The corporation consisted of various Divisions. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 34 (1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950) the State government issued the directions to the Corporation on August 1, 1961 in relation to recruitment conditions of service and wages to be paid to the employees of the M. G. R. T. D. who had opted to serve under the Corporation. The Corporation thereafter passed a resolution resolving that all rules, Regulations, procedures, precedents and conventions enforced on July 31, 1961 in the mysore Government Road Transport Department be continued by the Corporation until further orders. In view of the aforesaid resolution the Standing Orders and other precedents earlier prevalent held the field till the regulations were issued under a notification of the State government dated March 15, 1972 which were published in the Mysore Gazette dated March 8, 1972. Part-III of the Regulations was challenged in K. V. R. Shetty's Case on the grounds :

(3.) IN its objections the Corporation while resisting submitted that the Standing Orders which were applicable to the erstwhile BTS and M. G. R. T. D. under the Standing Orders Act, stood repealed by the Regulations which came into force on June 19, 1974. A Division Bench of this court examined the rival pleas of the parties and held that the impugned Regulations were valid which had superseded the certified Standing Orders of the Corporation. The correctness of the division bench judgment in K. Y. R. Shetty's case was doubted by a Division Bench of this court in Pandavapura Sahakara Sakhare Kharkane Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Ational I. T. Bangalore case (supra) who vide their order dated October 24, 1990 held : "therefore it appears to us that as the judgment in K. V. R. Shetty's case (supra) rederation in the light of the quires reconsi submission made by the Learned Counsel for the respondents relying on the specific portions of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UPSE Board v. Hari Sar (1978-II-LLJ-399 ). We consider it obligatory to refer the following question of law to the opinion of the Full Bench : "whether the fact that the State Government has framed rules regulating the conditions of service of officers and employees of co-operative societies established and functioning under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, under Section 129 (2) (o) of the Act, in which there is a rule prescribing the age of superannuation of officers and employees of a Co-operative Society and the rules have been Published in the official sufficient to make the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act inapplicable to the petitioner establishment by the force of Section 13b of the said Act, even in the absence of publication of such rules by a special notification issued by the Government and published in the official gazette under Section 13b of the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act ?" as desired by the Division Bench the matter was placed before the Full Bench who vide their judgment over-ruled the judgment in K. V. R. Shetty's case. The learned Single Judge formulated the following question for his consideration :