BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPN.versusT.V. ANANDAPPA

't


                                [2009] 6 S.C.R. 475


             BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPN.                           A
                                          v.
                                 T.V. ANANDAPPA
                         (Civil Appeal No. 2589 of 2009)

                                  APRIL 16, 2009
                                                                               B
                  [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                               GANGULY, JJ.]

                Labour laws - Termination of Badli worker- Labour Court
           directed his re-instatement with continuity of service in list of   C
           Badli conductors - Order upheld by High Court - On appeal,
           held: Respondent-badli worker had no right under the
           Industrial Disputes Act - Labour Court should not have
           therefore adjudicated the dispute raised by him - Reference
           made to Labour Court was incompetent - In the peculiar facts        o
           of the case there was no scope for inclusion of the name of
           respondent in the list of Badli Conductors and there was no
           question of any continuity of service - Industrial Disputes Act,
           1947 - s.10(1-C).

               Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v.           E
           S.G. Kotturappa and Anr. 2005 (3) SCC 409, relied on.

                                 Case Law Reference:

                2005 (3) sec 409          relied on             Para 9
                                                                               F
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
           2589 of 2009.

               From the Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2005 of the High
           Court of Karnataka at Banglore in Writ Petition No. 23435/2005
     >1    (S-KSRTC).                                                          G

                R.S. Hedge, Chandra Prakash, Rahul Tyagi, Kamal Mohan
          · Joshi, Ashwani Garg and P.P. Singh for the Appellant.

               V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents.
                                      475                                      H
     476      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 6 S.C.R.


.A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
  Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ
B petition filed by the appeilant. Challenge in this writ petitions
  was to the award passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore
  setting aside the order of removal of the respondent
  (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') and directing his re-
  i,nstatement with continuity of seniority in the list. of Bad Ii
c Conductors but without back wages.
        3. Factual scenario is almost undisputed. The respondent
  was appointed as Badli Conductor and disciplinary enquiry was
  conducted against him with regard to his unauthorized absence
  from duty. His name was ordered to be removed from the list
D of Badli Conductors by order dated 19.12.1995. A Claim .
  Petition in terms of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes
  Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') was filed. The same was withdrawn
  and dispute under Section 10(1-C) of the Act was raised which
  was referred to the Labour Court, Bangalore. After recording
E evidence of the parties the Labour Court came to the conclusion
  that the absence from duty on the part of the respondent was
  on account of ill health and indisposition . Placing reliance on
  the medical certificates produced and the reasons assigned
  for his absence the Labour Court held that the respondent was
F entitled to re-instatement as Badli Conductor and order of his
  removal was not justified.
         Order of Labour Court was challenged before the High
     Court.
G      4. The stand in the writ petition was that there was delay
  of about 4 years in raising the dispute while filing the application
  under Section 10(4-A) of the Act and although a specific
  objection was raised in this regard before the Labour Court the
  same was not considered. The charge framed against the
H workman about his unauthorized absence from duty
        BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPN. 477
           v. T.V. ANANDAPPA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
        intermittently for a long period of time has not been considered     A
        by the Labour Court while passing the award.
              5. The workman contended that the Labour Court was
        justified in holding that because of his ailment he could not join
        duty and had remained absent.
                                                                             8
             6. So far as the delayed approach is concerned the
        respondent-workman contended that there was no evidence
'   A   adduced regarding delay or gainful employment. The High
        Court was of the view that there was no material to show that
        the workman was gainfully employed anywhere. That being so,          c
        the writ petition was dismissed.
              7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that being
        Badli worker the question of any protection under the Act does
        not arise. The Labour Court seems to have proceeded on the
        basis that since the medical certificates were submitted , he        D
        should not have been removed. Admittedly, his name was
        struck off on 19.12.1995. For the first time a grievance was
        raised in 1999. The respondent filed claim statement and
        ultimately arguments were heard and reference was made.
        Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of         E
        the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court.
             8. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in his
        submission that there was no protection available under the Act
        to the respondent.
                                                                             F
             9. In view of what has been stated in Karnataka State
        Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. S. G. Kotturappa and
        Anr. (2005 (3) sec 409) the respondent had no right under
        the Act. The Labour Court should not have therefore adjudicated
        the dispute. In essence, the reference made to the Labour Court
        was incompetent. In the peculiar facts of the case there is no       G
        scope for inclusion of the name of the respondent in the Badli
        Conductors and there is no question of any continuity of service.
             10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
        8.8.8.                                    Appeal partly ,allowed.    H