KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR. versus S.G. KOTTURAPPA AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 03-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND 
ANR. 
B 
c 
v. 
S.G. KOTTURAPPA AND ANR. 
MARCH 3, 2005 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Labour laws: 
Badli workers-Status and rights o/--Held: Badli worker does not enjoy 
any status as a worker-His services are not protected and can be terminated 
if found unsatisfactory like that of a probationer-Status of temporary employee 
is higher than Badli worker-Rights of Badfi workers are not absolute in 
nature-He can raise dispute with regard to wrongful termination of services 
D only on violation of mandatory statutory provisions. 
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950-Karnataka State Road Transport 
Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulation, 1982-RegulatiOns 4(6) 
and 10(5)-Badli workers appointed, services utilised on day to day basis, 
repeated acts of misco11duct by them-Termination of services finding services 
E unsatisfactory-Correctness of -Held : Badli workers do not acquire any 
legal right to continue in service nor protection under the Industrial Disputes 
Act since they have not completed 240 days of service as required under 
section 25F of the 1947 Act-Also principles of natural justice complied with 
before imposing punishment-Hence, termination order cannot be faulted 
F with-Even if termination order is found bad in law, worker's name can only 
be considered to continue in wait list and cannot be automatically absorbed 
in service-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 25F-Administrative Law. 
Appellants-State Road Transport Corporation appointed 
respondents as Badli Conductors on badli basis. Respondent in the first 
appeal committed repeated acts of misconduct and minor punishments 
were imposed. Appellants on finding his services to be unsatisfactory, 
terminated his services. He was discontinued from utilization as Badli and 
his name was removed from the select list and also his chance of further 
appointment as conductor in terms of his selection was forfeited. 
Respondents raised industrial disputes. State filed references before the 
520 
--
-
K.S.R.T.C. v. S.G. KOTTURAPPA 
521 
La.bour Court. Both Labour Court and High Court relying on the decision A 
of this Court in S. Govindaraju '" Karnataka S.R. T.C. and Anr., passed 
awards holding that the termination order were bad in law for non 
compliance with the principles of natural justice and directed 
reinstatement of workmen with full back wages. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-State Road Transport Corporation contended that it was B 
not a case-where workman had completed 240 days of service as contained 
in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as such the respondent 
did not derive any legal right to continue as a Badli worker and the 
decision of this Court in S. Govindaraju v. Karnataka S.R. TC. and Anr., is 
not applicable; that compliance of principles of natural justice would have C 
been rendered in futility inasmuch past misconduct committed by the 
respondent stood admitted; and that the respondent was given an 
opportunity of hearing before imposing punishment. 
Respondent-workman contended that the conditions of service of the 
Badli workmen being governed by the Karnataka State Road Transport D 
Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982, as such the right 
to continue in service is a statutory right; and that the disqualification 
relating to forfeiture as contemplated under Regulation 10(5) is declared 
by High Court in some other matter as invalid, deserves strict construction 
since by the termination order the right of the respondent to be taken in 
permanent service of the appellant stood forfeited. 
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Regulation 16 of the KSRTC C&R Regulations 1968 
and the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and 
Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 are pointer to the fact that the rights of F 
the Badli workers are not absolute in nature. The terms and conditions 
of employment of a Badli worker may have a statutory flavour but the 
same would not mean that it is not otherwise contractual. So long as a 
worker remains a Badli worker, he does not enjoy a status. His services 
are not protected by reason of any provisions of the statute. He does not G 
hold a civil post. The status of a Badli worker cannot be better than a 
probationer whose services can be terminated for not being able to 
complete the period of probation satisfactorily, there is no reason as to 
why the same standard cannot 

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