MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus BABAJAN CONDUCTOR & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 925 · Decided: 08-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG

Judgment (excerpt)

.! 
925 
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
BABAJAN CONDUCTOR & ANR. 
February 8, 1977 
[M. H. BEG, C.J. AND P. s. KAILASAM, J.] 
Co11stilutio11 of India Ari. 226--Inherent powers of the lligh Gour/ 10 grant 
relief in individual cases of hardship, when permissible-Road Transport 
Cor-
poration Act, 1950-And Notification made by the Mysore Government 11/s 34 
(!)-Scope of-Winding up of a department operates as a discharge of its 
.servants. 
Respondent I, a conductor of the 
Mysore Government Road Transport 
Department was dismissed for misconduct on 25-1-1961. 
The legality of the 
B 
said dismissal order was questioned in the High Court under Art. 226 with 
a 
C 
further prayer to declare that he had continued in service since the date of his 
suspension and commencement of disciplinary proceedings. 
The I:Tigb 
Court 
allowed the writ petition on 11-9-1964 and quashed rhe dismissal order with an 
·Observation viz. "It is further ordered that this is without prejudice to the hold-
ing of fresh enquiry if they consider ·the same necessary". 
On 1-8-1961. 
the 
Road Transport Corporation was constituted and the Government Road Trans-
·port Department was abolished. Such of the employees who had exercised their 
.option as per the notice dated 23-6-1961, were taken over by the appcllnnt 
corporation. 
The respondent No. 1 was not given the option a» he was dis-
D 
missed by that date. On a complaint under the Contempt of Courts Act against 
respondent 2 and the appellant, that there was disobedience to the order of the 
High Court dated 11-9-1964, the respondent 1 was paid 1be salaiy by the State 
Government for the period 25-1-1961 to 31-7-1971. Since he was not paid back 
salary and allowances and also the salary due from 1-8-1961, the 
respondent 
Jiled a writ petition No. 1579 I 66 which was again allowed. 
On a 
concession 
m11de· by the counsel for the State Government that the State Government was 
willing to make available to the petitioner an option to become an employee of 
the appellant corporation, the High Court held : 
"Notice shall be in the same 
E 
form in which it was served on other employees and with a month's time 
to 
exercise his option. ' If he exercises his option to become an employee of the 
<:orporation the petitioner will have, all the, benefits such as continuity in service, 
seniority, the benefit o~ the old conditions of service applicable in Mysore Gov-
ernment Road Transport Department. The petitioner will also be entitled to the 
saiary for the period~ between August l, 1961 and the date of his appointment 
as an employee, of the corporation". On appeal by special leave by the corpo-
ration, the Cami, 
HELD: (1) The order of the High Court dated 11-9-1964 could not 
·possibly amount to a declaration that the first respondent had continued in the 
service of either the Mysore Government or had become the servant of the 
t1ppellant corporation, a separate legal entity which came into existence by mea,ns 
of a Notification under s. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. 
As a separate legal entity the corporation could not be said to ha•ve stepped 
automatically into the shoes of the Mysore Road Transport Department, there 
·being .RO provision of the Act or Rules made thereunder to that effect. 
[927 A-DJ 
(2) The declaratory relief asked for not having been granted, that relief 
·would be deemed to have been refused. 
Failure to go in appeal against that 
·decision operates as a bar for claiming sueli. a 
relief in the 
subsequent writ 
petition. [931 Bl 
F 
G 
(3) The effect of the High Courts~ order setting aside the dismissal was thllt 
the .stigma of dismissal was removed from the .record of the first respond ei;•. 
H 
'The winding of the department on the facts of the case, 
operates as the dis-
charge of the respondent. The respondent cannot be deemed to be the corpo-
ration's employee inasmuch as he has not exercised any option, nor did he ask-
for a notice of option in the original writ petition filed by him. [931 D-EJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1977] 2 s.C.R. 
Mysore State Road Transport Corporafion v. A. Krishna Rao & Anr., C.A. 
No. 1720 of 1967 S.C. decided on 6-8-1969, followed. 
( 4) Neither the Act nor the two notifications 
under s. 34(1) of the 
Act 
contain any provision which could entitle an employee of the Mysore Govern-
mont Road Transport Departmen~ to get a notice automatically. 
The notifica-
tions could apply on

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