S. Govindaraju Vs. K.S.R.T.C. & ANR
[1986] INSC 80 (15 April 1986)
SINGH, K.N. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J) REDDY, O.
CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION: 1986 AIR 1680 1986 SCR (2) 509 1986
SCC (3) 273 1986 SCALE (1)794
ACT:
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Cadre
& Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 - Regulation 10(5) - State Road Transport
Corporation - Conductor - Services terminated without enquiry - Legality of -
Whether principles of natural justice violated - Opportunity of explanation -
Entitlement and necessity of.
HEADNOTE:
Regulation 10(5) of the Regulations
(Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations 1982
provides that during temporary/Badli employment a candidate if
terminated/removed from service as unsuitable for the post, he will forfeit his
chance for the appointment in terms of his selection.
The appellant was selected for appointment as
Conductor in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation - a statutory
authority constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950. His name
was placed on the select list prepared by the Selection Committee constituted
under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment)
Regulation 1982. He was not given a regular appointment but, he was appointed
to work as Conductor in temporary vacancy. He continued to work for a period of
more than 240 days. While he was working as Conductor, his services were
terminated under Regulation 10(5) of the Regulations on the ground of his being
found unsuitable for the post without giving any opportunity of explanation.
The termination order further stated that the appellant would forfeit his
chance for appointment in terms of selection and his name shall stand deleted
from the select list.
The appellant challenged the validity of
termination order before the High Court in a Writ Petition. The High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the order of termination was made in
terms under which employment was given 510 to him and it did not amount to
retrenchment in view of s. 2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
Allowing the appeal, ^
HELD 1. The appellant was not afforded any
opportunity of explanation before the issue of the impugned order.
Consequently, the order is rendered null and
void being inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.
Therefore the order of the High Court as also
the order of termination are set aside and the appellant shall be treated in
service and be paid his back wages and other benefits. [514 C-D]
2. The Karnataka Road Transport Corporation
(Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations 1982 which regulate the conditions of
service of its employees, are statutory in nature having been framed under s.
45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act. Once a candidate is selected
and his name is included in the select list in accordance with the Regulations,
he gets a right to be considered for appointment as and when vacancy arises. On
the removal of his name from Select List, serious consequences entail as he
forfeits his right to employment in future. In such a situation even though the
Regulations do not stipulate for affording any opportunity to the employee, the
principle of natural justice would be attracted and the employee would be
entitled to an opportunity of explanation, though no elaborate inquiry would be
necessary. Giving an opportunity of explanation would meet the bare minimal
requirement of natural justice. Before the services of an employee are
terminated, resulting into forfeiture of his right to be considered for
employment, opportunity of explanation must be afforded to the employee
concerned. [513 D-E; 513H; 514 A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1339(NL)
of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.85 in
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No. 9171 of 1985.
R.K. Garg, V. Laxminarayana and D.K. Garg for
the Appellant.
G.B. Pai, N.D.B. Raju, Miss Deepa and Vineet
Kumar for the Respondent.
511 The Judgment of the Court was delivered
by SINGH, J. Special Leave to appeal is granted.
This appeal is directed against the order of
the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the respondents' writ petition under
Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of termination of service on
the ground that it was violative of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal
are that the appellant was selected for appointment as Conductor in the
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation constituted under the Transport Act,
1950, his name was placed on the select list prepared by the Selection
Committee constituted under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre
and Recruitment) Regulation 1982. He was not given a regular appointment but he
was appointed to work as conductor in temporary vacancy. He continued to work
for a period of more than 240 days. While he was working as conductor his
services were terminated by the Order dt. 2-4/5 of 1985 on the ground of his
being found unsuitable for the post. The termination order further directed
that the appellant would forfeit his chance for appointment in terms of
selection and his name shall stand deleted from the select list. The appellant
challenged the validity of termination order before the High Court of Karnataka
by means of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground that
the order of termination was void and illegal for the non- compliance of Sec.
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Karnataka rejected the petition holding that the order of termination was made
in terms under which employment was given to him and it did not amount to
retrenchment in view of Sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act
provides that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous
service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by
that employer until he has been paid retrenchment compensation which shall be
equivalent to 15 days average pay for completing a year of service or any part
thereof in excess of 6 months. Section 25F was designed by the Parliament to
safeguard the interest of employees. The statutory requirement of payment of
compensation is a condi- 512 tion precedent for the retrenchment of a workman
and any termination without payment would make the retrenchment order invalid
and inoperative, as has been held by this Court in State Bank of India v. Shri.
N. Sundra Money, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1111; Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala,
A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1219; Mohan Lal v. Management B.E., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1253 and
Management K.S.R.T.C. v.Baraiah, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1320.
Section 2(oo) defines retrenchment which
means the termination by the employer of a workman for any reason whatsoever,
otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but
does not include (a) voluntary retirement of workman; or (b) retirement of the
workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of an employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that
behalf or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of
continued ill health. By the amending Act 49 of 1984 a new clause (bb) was
added to Sec. 2(oo). The amended provision runs as under :
2(oo) "retrenchment" means the
termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary
action, but does not include - (a) x x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x x "(bb)
termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the
contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its
expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf
contained therein; or".
The High Court held that since the
appellant's contract for employment contained a stipulation that his services
could be terminated at any time, the termination did not amount to retrenchment
in view of the newly added exception to Sec. 2(oo). The validity of Section
2(oo)(bb) was not challenged before us. The learned counsel for the appellant
urged that if 513 the view of the High Court is accepted it would enable
unscrupulous emloyers to provide a stipullation in the contract of service for
terminating the employment of the employees to escape the rigorous of Sec. 25F
of the Act.
This would further confer arbitrary powers on
the employers which would be destructive of the protection granted by the Act
to the employees. We do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on
this question as in our opinion the appellant is entitled to succeed on another
short question i.e. the termination order being violative of principles of
natural justice.
The Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation is a statutory authority constituted under the Road Transport
Corporation Act, 1950. The Corporation has framed Regulations (Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation Cadre & Recruitment Regulations) 1982 regulating the
conditions of service of its employees. These regulations are statutory in
nature having been framed under sec. 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation
Act. Admittedly the appellant was selected by the Selection Committee
constituted under the aforesaid Regulations and his name was included in the
select list prepared for the purpose of appointment as Conductor as and when
vacancy would arise. His name was also included in the Badli list of workers
and in pursuance thereof he was given employement. There is no dispute that the
appellant was allowed to be in continuous service for a period of more than one
year and while he was in continuous service the impugned order of termination
was issued in accordance with Regulation 10(5). The relevant provision of
Regulation 10(5) provides that during temporary/Badli appointment a candidate
if terminated/removed from service as unsuitable for the post he will forfeit
his chance for the appointment in terms of his selection. There is no dispute
that the appellant's services were terminated on the ground of his being found
unsuitable for the appointment and as a result of which his name was deleted
from the select list, and he forfeited his chance for appointment. Once a
candidate is selected and his name is included in the select list for
appointment in accordance with the Regulations he gets a right to be considered
for appointment as and when vacancy arises. On the removal of his name from the
select list serious consequence entail as he forfeits his right to employment
in future. In such a 514 situation even though the Regulations do not stipulate
for affording any opportuniry to the employee, the principles of natural
justice would be attracted and the employee would be entitled to an opportunity
of explanation, though no elaborate enquiry would be necessary. Giving an
opportunity of explanation would meet the bare minimal requirement of natural
justice. Before the services of an employee are terminated, resulting into
forfeiture of his right to be considered for employement, opportunity of
explanation must be afforded to the employee concerned. The appellant was not
afforded any opportunity of explanation before the issue of the impugned order
consequently the order is rendered null and void being inconsistent with the
principles of natural justice. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside
the order of the High Court and also the order of termination and direct that
the appellant shall be treated in service and be paid his back wages and other
benefits. The appeal is allowed with costs.
M.L.A. Appeal allowed.
Back
