LexMANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE & ORS versus M. BORAIAH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
• '
.\
.. ,.
·f
783
MANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORAT!ON, BANGALORE & ORS.
.A
v ..
M. BORAIAH & ORS.
B
November l! 1983
..
(AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ,j
lnduslrfr~l -Disputes Act 1947, Ss. 2 (oo) & 25F :'Retrenchment"-·r.vhat
is-Term(nalio~ ofserviC'!s of employee during Probation-Whe._th'er "retrench-
.C
ment'', ·
The j>Pc;llant-Co~poration· · tef1ninated tp.e · eniploymen~ of Some- of its
cmpl"oyee~respondents who· were probationers on tbe ground ,of. unsatisfactory
service, some .during the period of their probation and others during the .
. exte~ded period p~ p~Obation.
The Labour Court, to. which the dispute was·referred, held that s. 25F
·cf thC Industrial ·Disputes Act had no apPliccitiOn, and that for this. reason "the
discharge·was invalid.
·
Dismissing the cm_ployer's writ petition a Single Judge held that· the
ord.Crs of discharge amounted tO retrenchqient as d~finCd in S. 2 ·(oo) of the Act
and ·were bad for ~on·c6mpliance of s. 25F.
A Division Bench; of the High
<;;;._outl upheld this decisi6n?
. .
In the appeal to thi_s coun if was contended on behalf of. the appellant
that th~ services of. the respoode1;1ts had been termii:iated on the groun·d of their
'UDSUitability and it W~S not a Case Of disbanding. Surplus labour force and,
therefore, _such termination did not_ amount to reterenchmeni.
,Qisn1issing the appeal,
.
.
.
.
HELD': 1. ·OD.c~ the conclusihn-is.reach.ed.that retrenchment as defiried
D
E
F
. in s. 2. (oo) ·or. the Indu'.strial Disputes Act covers every case of termination· of
G
service except those whic~ have· bfen embodied in· the c;IefiniLion, discharge frorl-i
employment or terniination of service of a,.probationer would also amo·unt .to
r~tr~nchment. [794 E]
In the instant case the requirements ·of s. 25F had not been cO~pHed
with. [794 FJ
"
H
•
'
'A
B
_184
SUPREME COURT i\EPORTS
[1984) 1 S.C.R'
,
2. The stage has come wben the views indicated in State Bank of India
v. N; Sundara Money [1976] 3SCR160 has been ''absorbed into the coosensu•"
and there is no scope for putting the clock back or fOr an . anti-clockwise
·operation. [794 DJ
·
Harlprasad Shivshanker.· Shukla v, A.D. Dlvikar,
j957 S,C.R. 121;
Hindustan Steel Ltd .. v. 'l'he Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa & Ors. [1977]
. I S.C.R. 586; Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patio/a, [l980] 3 S.C.R. 884; Indian
Hume Pipe co. Ltd. v. The. Workmen, [19~0] 2 S.C.R. 32; Mohan Lalv .. ·Manage-
ment of M/s. Bharat E(ectronlcs' Ltd. [19~1] 3 S.C.R. 518;· Surendra Kumar
· Ver'!la etc. v. The Central Governn.ienf
lndu~trial Tribu'nal-cum-Labour .Court,
New Delhi & Anr. [1981] 1 S.C.R. 789; L. ·Robert D' Souza v. The Exeoutive
Enllfneer,'Southern Railway & Ani;. [1982] 3 S.C.R.'.251 referred to.
\
C
C1v1L ArPELLATE Ju11.ISn1cTioN : Civil ·Appeal Nos, 3085 of
D
1981 and 3628-3649 of 19~2.
From the judgment and Order dated the 6th July,•1981 and.
5th August, 1982 of the High Colirt of K'.arnataka at Bangalore in
·Writ Appeal Nos. 724/81 and 1324/80, 1470, 1788, 1894/81, 55,
94, 368/82, 475/81, 1133/82, H310/80, 22158, 21822/80, 10531,
10612/82, 1086; 1778/80, 12332, 12890/78; 19sso;19, 11089/82,
l122i! & 19410/82.
. N. K. Sharma, Ms. Depika Saxena and Vineet Kumar for the
E
appellants. ·
F
H
R. K. Garg, D. K. Garg, P. R. Ramasesh and Ms. R. Bagai for
the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was· delivered by
. \
RANGANATH M1SRA, J. The employer-Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation-created. under a .State Act entitled the
Transport Corporation· Act of 1950 ('Corporation Act' for short) ·
is in. appeal by 'special leave and the common decision of a Division
Bench of the High Court which held that termination of employees
while on probation on ground of unsuitability amounted to retren-
chment and for non-compliance :fi ith the provisions of s. 25F of the
·Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Disputes Act' for short), .the termi-
nation is bad, is challenged,
· As per Rule 7 made under s. 45 of the. Corporatjon Act,
direct recruits .are to be on probation (or two years and such pro-
bation call be extended. , The empl_oyer .terminated the employment
•
•t
r
' '
\II
;.
v."
~
•
)
>
... •
•
•
'.
_li!.S.R._T. CORPN: v. M. BORAIAH (Ranganath Misra, J.).
785
of some of the employees during ihe iiiitial period· of probation and
of, some others. during the extended period O!J: the ground of· un·
sExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.