BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPN. versus T.V. ANANDAPPA

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 16-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' t 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 475 
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPN. 
v. 
T.V. ANANDAPPA 
(Civil Appeal No. 2589 of 2009) 
APRIL 16, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
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 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2589 of 2009. 
F 
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 we

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.