HALLI GOWDA & ORS. versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 936 · Decided: 08-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK, RANGANATH MISRA, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
• 
HALLI GOWDA & ORS. 
v. 
MANAGING DIRECTOR, K:S.R.T.C. & ANR. 
MARCH 8, 1989 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ, RANGANATH MISRA AND 
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
Statutory Organisations-One set of daily wage employees cannot 
) 
be discriminated as against another in the matter of regularisation of 
, ~~
service and grant of time scale pay. 
The petitioners who had served the respondent-Corporation for 
long periods on daily wage basis prayed for regnlarisation of services 
and grant of time scale pay from their dates of initial appointment on 
the gronnd that others similarly placed had been granted these benefits. 
D 
The Conrt, after noticing that there were discrepancies in the 
factual position adopted by the parties, 
DIRECTED: The matter to be examined is with reference to 
factual position as to when the 19 persons in Annexure 'A' were initially 
employed and when they have been regularised as against the initial 
E employment of each of the petitioners. This can be done only by refer-
ence to appropriate records. We direct that a senior officer of the 
Corporation shall be named by respondent No. l to look into these 
allegations and at the time the question is examined by such officer the 
petitioners shall be given appropriate opportunity of being heard, if 
asked for throngh connsel also, and all relevant documents should be 
F 
looked into to ascertain whether the claim of the petitioners that 
they have been discriminated against in the facts indicated in their writ 
petition particularly with reference to Annexure 'A' is correct; and 
in case it is found that the petitioners have not been given the benefit 
which has given to the 19 daily rated Conductors specified in Annexure 
'A' i petitioners may be conferred the same benefit as has been exten-
G ded to those 19 persons unless the respondent is able to assign satis-
factory and cogent reasons and states as to why petitioners are not 
entitled to the same benefit. This would be so on the footing that 
regularisation does not require a specified period of service to have been 
pot in. (939£-H] 
:H 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1325 of 1987. 
936 
H. GOWDA v. K.S.R.T.C. 
937 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
P. Rangaswamy, K.K. Gupta and Capt. Virefldera Kumar fot 
the Petitioners. 
K.R. Nagaraja and R.S. Hegde, for the Respondents, 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
Thirty-two petitioners in this application under Art. 32 of the 
A 
· Constitution are Bus Conductors in the employment of the Karnataka 
C 
State Road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 1. They have 
alleged that the respondent·Corporation is a statutory organisation 
and is. 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12. The normal practice 
prevalent in the Corporation is to initially appoint Conductors on daily 
wage basis and regularise them in due course. According to them, 19 
dllily wage Conductors as mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the petition 
D 
were regularised and brought on the time-scale of pay with effect from 
the original date of their employment as daily wage Conductors, while 
though the petitioners have served for quite a long period they have 
not yet been regularised. They have alleged discrimhtation and 
claimed relief on the basis of Art. 14. They have asked for a direction 
to the Transport Corporation to bring them on the time-scale by 
E 
regularisation rrom the date each of them came to be employed by the 
Corporation, as stated in Annexure 'B'. 
The Corporation in its return to the rule has accepted the posi-
tion that it "is a statutory body created under s. 3 of the Road Transport 
Corporation Act of 1950. There is no challenge to the allegation of the 
F 
petitioners that initial appointment is on daily wage basis and as and 
when regular vacancies arise the daily rated employees are brought on 
time-scale of pay and services are regularised. Paragraph 9 of the 
counter-affidavit specifically challenged the assertion of the peti-
tioners that 19 similarly placed employees were confirmed on the date 
of initial employment on daiiy rated basis. The plea in paragraph 9 is 
G 
as follows: 
"The information furnished in Annexure-A showing that 
19 persons who were working in different divisions have 
been appointed on time-scale on the same date is abso-
lutely wrong and misleading. The petitioners have sworn 
H 
938 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1989] l S.C.R. 
false affidavit without making any effort to verify the 
factual po

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