BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 19-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT

Judgment (excerpt)

' , 
! ~ 
. ___ : ___ /;'.,,----;·') ·\ 
\.-i- . 
' 
~ 
< 
.· 
" 
; 708 ' 
. ''.'•. ' 
-·-
\ 
·~\ 
'\,; 
' 'BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
. \\·; 
' 
\ 
V.' 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.~, 
February 19, 1970 
°' ~ · 
[J. M. SHELAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
B- '. 
Industrial Dispute-Termination of Service for misconducl.-Principles 
of natural justice-Duty to conform to--Corporation taking over employees 
"'on the rolls'' of the departmental undertaking-Includes those whO are 
cf.eemed --to b'e -in service-Taking over power Gnd functions of under-
taking includes regulation of cOnditions of service of employees arrd disci· 
plintlry action-Labour Court-Jurisdiction_ to go behind language of order 
of termination-Certiorari-Finding of Labour Court that order of termi-
C -
nation punitive neither unreasonable or perverse-High Court lvill not be--
justified· in interfering. 
· 
-
'' 
;·./ 
The third·respondent was a Head Clerk .in 
the 
Rajya Transport 
Authority, a departmental ·undertaking -of the respondent 
0 State Govern-
ment. - His appointment was temporary -terminable without notice. and 
without assigning any reason. By a_n order dated February 18, 1959 he 
was discharged from service. On April 20, 1959, the State_ Government, 
D 
in exercise of the power conferred under the Road Transport Corporation 
_Act, .1950, set up the appellant corpdration and under the notification the 
corporation was to "exercise all the powers and perform all the functions" 
till then exercised and performed by the Rajya Transport Authority. In 
February 1961 the State Government referred the question of termination 
cf the third· respondent's services to the Labour ·Court. The Labour 
Court held that he was a workman, that the termination of service was 
E 
punitive in nature in view· of the Corporation'S letter addressed to the 
Conciliation Officer that the third respondent 
had 
committed 
various 
irregularities in the discharge' of his duties,. and that the appellant Cor-
poration was the successor _in title to~ the Rajya Transport Authdrity.· 11te 
Labour Court, _therefore, held the termination illegal 
and -directed the 
Corporation to reinstate the third respondent in its -service A wi'it petition 
in the High Court for quashing the award was dismissed. In. the appeal 
F 
to this Court, it was contended that ( 1} the third respondent wa"s not a 
workman as defined in s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act; (ii) tbe 
order·_ terminating his service was an order of. termination simpliciter and 
(iii) even assuming the order -was illegal his remedy was against the State 
.Govemm~nt and not against the Corporatlon.-D~smissing the_ appeal, 
HELD ; (i) Prima facie the third respondent was neither an officer 
nor a member of the office staff in the administrative offices~ The standing 
Orders •. therefore, were applicable to him. The definition of .workman in 
G 
· s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act being a- comprehen·sive one, the 
third respondent must be held to be a workman within the meaning of s. -_ --:---
2(s) whose conditions of service were· governed by the standing orders, -- -
1712 J!l' 
(ii) The standing orders do not provide any precedure for dealing 
J 
with an employee guilty pf'misconduct enume'rated therein~ but it is well-
II 
established that termination of service on the ground of misconduct could -
only be done in conformity \\i.th the principles of natural justice .. Even 
though the order of termination may be couched in terms of an order of 
termination simpliciter the Labour Court is entitled to go behind the 
A 
( 
l. 
c 
I l' 
D 
E' 
F 
G 
) 
I~ 
.r 
H 
/,\) 
; 
, 
--
. 
-
__ , 
I 
.. 
STATE TRANSPORT CORP.-.v.' BIHAR STATE (f)helat, J.) 
709 
-
-._, 
appa'rent language of ihe order and co~~ider Whether-· the -order js t~r~i­
nation simpliciter or is imposed by way-of punishment. The conclusion- of 
the Labour Court that the termination of ·service of respondent 3 was noi 
one of termination simpliciter but was by w;:iy of penalty for irregularities . 
committed in the discharge of duties was neither unreasonable nor perverse 
and the High Court rightly refused· to interfere with such a finding in a 
writ of certiorari. [712F-713C] 
· 
. 
' 
. 
(iii) 
Employment of staff and regulating their condition of senrice, 
inclu<ling disciplinaTy action, was clearly one of the powers and functions 
- of the Rajya Transport Authority and this was also to be exercised and 
performed by the appellant corporation 

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