THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, RAMKOTE, HYDERABAD AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 01-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE MANAG'ING DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 
CORPORATION 
v. 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, RAMKOTE, 
HYDERABAD AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY I, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
labour laws: 
A 
B 
c 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10 (I) (d)-Reference to Industrial 
Tribunal regarding entitlement of the transferees under the new employer to 
benefits accruing to the employees of the former employer after the date of 
transfer-Held, in such a situation, the real issue was as to what service 
conditions were applicable to the transferred employees who had opted to D 
abide by the regulations of the new employer~lndustrial Tribunal cannot be 
said to have crossed the limits under reference. 
Promotion-Some of the· transferred employees foregoing promotion 
while the other were being promoted-Industrial Tribunal held that if and 
when the transferees opted to be governed by the Corporation's regulations, E 
they should be promoted on the basis of total service and seniority including 
their service in Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam-Such direction of the 
Industrial Tribunal held to the improper-Held that such employees whose 
juniors had already been promoted should be considered for promotion as 
and when vacancies arise in future without disturbing the already affected 
promotions-Further notional promotion be given without monetary benefits- F 
Service law. 
Back wages-Transport wing of the Devasthanam transferred to the 
appellant Corporation in 1975-Some employees opted to be governed by 
Rules and Regulations of the Corporation while the rest did not-Transferred G 
workmen's claim to selection grade under consideration since prior to the 
date of transfer-Said claim granted by the Corporation notionally in 1976 
i.e., after the transfer with effect from 1974 i.e., before the transfer-The 
monetaty benefits were to be with effect from 1978-lndustria/ Dispute 
referred-Tribunal allowed the monetary benefits from the first day of the 
783 
H 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] I S.C.R. 
A year of the transfer-Challenge to the said award in a writ petition dismissed 
by the High Court-On appeal, Held: The award called for no interference. 
Ex-gratia bonus-Industrial Tribunal held that the transferred 
employees opting to be governed by the Corporation's regulations to get ex-
gratia bonus at par with the other employees of the Corporation-Held, 
B finding of the Tribunal justified 
Concessional rates of bus tour--Said concessional rates for the 
employees of the Corporation raised to Rs. 4 per kilometer from Re. I per 
kilometer-Industrial Tribunal changed the said rate to Rs. 2.50 per kilometer 
C on equitable basis till the same are changed by the corporation-Finding 
of the Tribunal-He/cl, justified 
By an agreement entered into in 1975, the transport wing ofTirupati 
Tirumala Devasthanam, along with its 850 workmen, was transferred to the 
appellant Corporation. A challenge to the said transfer, by way of a writ 
D petition, was dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, appeal against the 
High Court order was also dismissed. While some of the transferred workmen 
opted to come under the Rules and Regulations of the appellant Corporation, 
the others opted not to come under the same. The members of the workers' 
Union made a demand that under Clause 13 of the transfer agreement they 
were entitled to the benefits which accrued to the present TTD workers after 
E the transfer. However, tlie Corporation did not agree to the demand which led 
to referring of an industrial dispute under Section 10 (I) (d) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal held that members of the claimant Union 
were not entitled to claim benefits which were conferred by the TTD 
Management on its employees subsequent to the merger in 1975. The Tribunal 
F ordered (a) for Pay in selection grade to be fixed taking 01-01-1975 as the 
crucial date; (b) for promotion to the workmen as and when their opting to be 
governed by the appellant Corporation's Regulations taking into account 
their total service and seniority including the TTD service; (c) facility for 
bus tour on concessional hire and (d) grant ofex-gratia bonus to the members 
of the claimant Union on the basis on which the order employees of the 
G appellant Corporation were paid. Appellant Corporation challenged the said 
award in a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this 
appeal. 
The appellant Corporation conten

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