Mysore State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Gopinath Gundachar Char [1967] INSC 233 (6 October 1967)
06/10/1967 BACHAWAT, R.S.
BACHAWAT, R.S.
WANCHOO, K.N. (CJ) RAMASWAMI, V. MITTER, G.K.
HEGDE, K.S.
CITATION: 1968 AIR 464 1968 SCR (1) 767
CITATOR INFO:
E&D 1974 SC1613 (14) R 1976 SC1027 (14) R
1985 SC 883 (7) RF 1986 SC2166 (6) RF 1988 SC 587 (14)
ACT:
Road Transport Corporation Act 64 of 1950-ss.
14, 19(1)(a), 19 (1)(b), 19(1)(c), 34, 45(1) and 45(2)(c)-Whether Corporation
can appoint officers and servants in the absence of any regulations framed
under s. 45(2)(c).
HEADNOTE:
The General Manager of the appellant
Corporation issued a notice on July 21, 1964 inviting applications for
appointments, to two junior posts in the Corporation. The respondent, who was
an employee of the Corporation and claimed that he had a right to be promoted
to one of the posts, filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution
challenging the notice on the ground that the Corporation had no power to issue
it. The High Court, following its earlier decision in Karnakar Mangesha Desai
v. State of Mysore and other [1960](1) Mysore Law Journal 72), held that until
regulations had been framed by the Corporation under s. 45(2) (c) with the
previous sanction of the State Government-and this has admittedly not been donethe
Corporation could not appoint officers and servants and lay down their
conditions of service.
On appeal to this Court by special leave.
HELD: Allowing the Appeal: section 14(2)
expressly confers upon the Corporation the incidental power to appoint such
officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient performance
of its functions and Section 19(1)(c) empowers it to provide for its employees
suitable conditions of service. Although the conjoint effect of ss-14(3)(b), 34
and 45(2)(c) is that the appointment of officers and servants and their
conditions of service must conform to the directions, if any, given by the
State Government under s. 34 and the regulations, if any, framed under s.
45(2)(c).
until such regulations are framed or
directions are given, the Corporation may appoint such officers or servants as
may be necessary for the efficient performance of its duties on such terms and
conditions as it thinks fit. [770 H: 771 A, B-D].
There was no merit in the contention that the
General Manager had no power to issue the notice dated July 21, 1964 in the
absence of any resolution by the Corporation under s. 12(c) expressly
authorising him to issue it. [771 F].
Dundee Harbour Trustees v. D. & J. Nicol,
[1915] A.C. 550, 556, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1299 of 1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated November 16, 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
1464 of 1964.
Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the
appellant.
R. D. Datar and S. N. Prasad, for the
respondent.
768 The Judgment of the Court was delivered
by Bachawat, J The respondent was a class III employee in the statistical
department of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation. In October 1961, he
was temporarily promoted to act as statistical superintendent at Hassan. On
July 21, 1964, the General Manager of the Corporation issued a notice inviting
applications for appointments to class 11 junior posts of (a)
assistant/divisional statisticians and (b) labour welfare officers on a pay of
Rs. 220 per month in the pay scale of Rs. 220-15-400-EB-20-500 plus the usual
dearness and other allowances admissible under the Rules.
On August 11, 1964, the respondent tiled a
writ petition in the High Court at Mysore claiming that the Corporation had no
power to issue the notice and praying for an order quashing it. The High Court
allowed the petition and quashed the notice. The Corporation has filed this
appeal by special leave. For the proper appreciation of the point in issue, it
is necessary to read ss. 14 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 34. 45(1) and
45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Act No. 64 of 1950):
"14(1). Every Corporation shall have a
Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and a Chief Accounts Officer
appointed by the State Government. (2) A Corporation may appoint such other
officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient performance
of its functions.
(3)The conditions of appointment and service
and the scales of pay of the officers and servants of a Corporation shall(a) as
respects the Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and the Chief Accounts
Officer be such as may be prescribed, and (b) as respects the other officers
and servants be such as may, subject to the provisions of section 34, be
determined by regulations made under this Act.
19(1). Subject to the provisions of this Act,
a Corporation shall have power.
(a) to operate road transport services in the
State and in any extended area;
(b) to provide for any ancillary service-,
(c) to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including fair
wages, establishment of provident fund, living accommodation, places for rest
and recreation and other amenities.
34(1). The State Government may, after
consultation with a Corporation established by such Government give to the
Corporation general instructions to be followed by the Corporation, and such
instructions may include directions relating to the recruitment, conditions of
service and training of its employees, wages to be paid to the 769 employees,
reserves to be maintained by it and disposal of its profits or stocks.
(2) In the exercise of its powers and
performance of its duties under this Act, the Corporation shall not depart from
any general instructions issued under sub-section (1) except with the previous
permission of the State Government.
45(1). A Corporation may, with the previous
sanction of the State Government. make regulations, not inconsistent with this
Act and the rules made "there under, for the administration of the affairs
of the Corporation.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to
the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or
any of the following matters, namely:-(c) the conditions of appointment and
service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation other
than the Chief, Executive Officer or General Manager and the Chief Accounts
Officer;" Admittedly, no regulations were framed by the Corporation under
s. 45(2)(c) prescribing the conditions of appointment and service and the
scales of pay of its officers and servants. In the affidavit filed on behalf of
the Corporation, it was stated that the Corporation was taking necessary steps
for the framing of the regulations. The High Court following its earlier
decision in Karnakar Mangesha Desai v. State of Mysore and others(1) held that
until regulations were framed by the Corporation under s.
45(2)(c) with the previous sanction of the
State Government, the Corporation could not appoint officers and servants and
lay down their conditions of service. We think that the judgment of the High
Court is erroneous and should be set aside.
In Dundee Harbour Trustees v. D. & J. Nicol(1),
Viscount Haldane L. C. said: "The answer to the question whether a
cor:)oration created by a statute has a particular power depends exclusively on
whether that power has been expressly given to it by the statute regulating it,
or can be implied from the language used. The question is simply one of
construction of language, and lot of presumption." Bearing in mind this
statement of law, let is consider whether the appellant had the power to
appoint officers and servants and to lay down their conditions of service in
the absence of regulations framed under s. 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport
Corporation Act, 1950. The appellant is an autonomous Corporation incorporated
under the Act for the purpose of operating road transport services in the State
and extended areas. For the proper discharge of its functions, it is necessary
for the Corporation to appoint officers and servants. Section 14(2) expressly
coners upon the Corporation the incidental power to appoint such officers and
servants as it considers necessary for the efficient per(1) [1966] 1 Mysore Law
Journal 72.
(2) [1915] A.C. 550, 556.
670 formance of its functions. Section
19(1)(c) empowers it to provide for its employees suitable conditions of
service.
Section 14(3) provides that the conditions of
appointment and service and the scales of pay of its officers and servants
shall be such as may subject to the provisions of s. 34 be determined by
regulations made under the Act.
Section 45(2)(c) 'empowers the Corporation to
frame regulations with the previous sanction of the State Government
prescribing the conditions of appointment, service and scales of pay of the
officers and servants. If the State Government issues any directions under s.
34 relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of the employees, the
Corporation must obey those directions. The conjoint effect of ss.14(3)(b),34
and 45(2)(c) is that the appointment of officers and servants and their
conditions of service must conform to the directions, if any, given by the State
Government under s.34 and the regulations, if any, framed under s.45(2)(c). But
until such regulations are framed or directions are given. the Corporation may
appoint such officers or servants as may be necessary for the efficient
performance of its duties on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. There
is necessarily a timelag between the formation of the Corporation and the
framing of regulations under s. 45(2)(c). During the intervening period, the
Corporation must carry on the administration of its affairs with the help of
officers and servants. In the absence of clear words, it is difficult to impute
to the legislature the intention that the Corporation would have no power to
appoint officers and servants and fix the conditions of service unless the
regulations under s.45(2)(c) are framed.
There is no merit in the further contention
that the General Manager had no power to issue the notice dated July 21, 1964
in the absence of any resolution by the Corporation under s.12(c) expressly
authorising him to issue it. In the exercise of his general powers of
management the General Manager had clearly the power to issue a notice inviting
applications from intending candidates, It is not alleged that he made any
appointment pursuant to the notice. The respondent also contended that he had
the right to be promoted to a class II junior post. But there is nothing on the
record to show that he has any vested right of promotion to the post. Civil
Miscellaneous Petition No. 3032 of 1967 filed by the respondent asking for
liberty to adduce additional evidence and to raise new contentions is
dismissed.
In the order dated August 17, 1967 granting special leave to the appellant, the Court directed that the appellant must
pay the costs of the respondent in any event. In the result, the appeal is
allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition is
dismissed. The appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent
pursuant to the order dated August 17, 1967.
R.K.P.S. Appeal allowed.
Back
