BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Atricles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the award given by the presiding officer, labour court, Chotanagpur Division, directing the reinstatement of respondent 3 and granting other consequential reliefs.

(2.) Respondent 3, Sheo Prasad Sinha, was employed as a head clerk in the office of the Divisional Manager, Rajya Transport, Bhagalpur, from 27 July 1956. The order of appointment (annexure A) stated that the appointment was purely temporary and terminable without notice and without assigning any reason. On 18 February 1959 he was discharged from service with immediate effect (Bee annexure B). The order of discharge was issued by the State Transport Commissioner of the Rajya Transport, Bihar. On 20 April 1959, the Government of Bihar, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (64 of 1950;, established with effect from 1 May 1959, a statutory body known as the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation) throughout the State of Bihar, and further stated in the order of establishment as follows (see annexure C): The said corporation shall, with effect from the said date, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions which are at present being exercised and performed by the Rajya Transport, Bihar.

(3.) In the meantime, however, the summary discharge of respondent 3 from service was taken up by the Bihar State Road Transport Karamchari Union (respondent 4) and the matter was first agitated before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The petitioner (the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation) informed the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur (annexure I to the counter -affidavit of respondent 1) on 30 January 1960 that the services of respondent 3 were terminated because in the course of certain enquiries the Rajya Transport Department had found that Sheo Prasad Sinha had committed various irregularities of a serious nature in the discharge of his duties. It was further asserted that at the time of the termination of his service he was a Government servant under the Rajya Transport Department and that, consequently, the labour laws would not apply in his case. But subsequently, however, the State Government themselves referred the dispute to the labour court by their order dated 24 February 1961, describing it as an industrial dispute. That Court, by its order dated 28 December 1961, held that the termination of the service of respondent 3 was not justified and directed his reinstatement and also awarded further consequential reliefs.