THE MOTOR TRANSPORT CONTROLLER. MAHA RASHTRA STATE, BOMBAY AND OTHERS versus PROVINCIAL RASHTRIYA MOTOR KAMGAR UNION, NAGPUR AND ORS

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 639 · Decided: 03-04-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
639 
THE MOTOR TRANSPORT CONTROLLER. MAHA-
RASHTRA STATE, BOMBAY AND OTHERS 
I'. 
PROVINCIAL RASHTRIY A MOTOR KAMGAR UNION, 
NAGPUR AND ORS 
IP. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO AND K. c. DAS 
GUPTA, JJ.] 
Industrial Dispute-Termination of Service-Validity of 
nof.ice--AboMion ot al! posts of an establishment-If amounts to 
reduction of posts-Road Transport Corporations Act 1950(64 of 
1950), as amended by Act 87 of 1956, s. 47-A-Central Provinc.s 
and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (C.P. & l:lerar 
23 of 1947), s. 31 Sch. II, Item 1. 
As a result of the passing of the States Reorganisation Act. 
1956, Vidharbha area which was in the State of Madhya Pradesh 
became part of the State of Bombay and when the State of 
Bo:nba.v was divided under the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1950, 
the said area remained in the State of Maharashtra. Before 1956. 
the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation and Provincial 
Services established under the Road Transport Corporations Act. 
1950, \\'ere operating in the States of Bombay and Madhya Pradesh 
respectively. To meet the situation arising from these ter-
ritorial changes, Parliament made 
amendments to the Road 
Transport Corporations Act, 1950, by which, inter alia s. 47-A 
i,.vas introduced providing for the reconstitution, reorganisation 
and dissolution of the corporations established under the Act. 
On May, 27, 1961, the Central Government made an Order under 
s. 47-i\ of the Act, inter alia, approving a scheme for the reorga-
nisation of the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation and 
~nnalgamating with it the Provincial Transport Services v:hich 
had, under the Reorganisation Act, 1956, become a. commercial 
undertaking of the State of Bombay and which had been operat-
ing in the Vidharba area. Clause 9(1) of this provided for the 
abolition of all the posts in the Provincial Transport Services 
and for discharge of all persons. holding such posts for service 
but giving such people an option of continuing in the service of 
the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Notice ter-
1ninating the services of the persons einployed by the Provincial 
Trnnsport Services (operating in Vidharba) were issued. There-
upon. t\vo former employees of the Provincial Transport Services 
and the Union of the workmen of that concern made an applica-
tion before the High Court of Bombay under Arts. 226 and 227 of 
the Constitution of India. challenging the validity, inter alia, of 
the notices of termination of service served on the employees on 
the ground that the action taken by the Government in abolish-
_. 
ing the posts and issuing notices of termination of- services of 
the employees was bad as it contravened, inter alia, the pro--
visions of s. 31 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Di~
putes Settlement Act. 1947. 
Held: Abolition of all posts of an establishment did not 
amount to reduction of posts within the meaning of Item 1 of 
the Schedule II of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial 
Disputes Settlement Act._ 1947; and the Government order abo-
iishing the posts and terminating the services of the employees 
19GI 
April S 
J96l 
The Motor 
Transport 
640 
SUPREl\IE COURT Rl~PORTS 
[1964 J 
did not aiinount to a change within the meaning of s. 31 of the 
Act. The Government was, therefore, not required to follow the 
procedure• mentioned in s. 31. 
_lfali:r~:;~~~",;tate 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 742 of 
Bomh"" a .. d Ot1"r; 1963. Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 4. 5, 
'· 
1961 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) at Nagpur in 
Prnl.'inrial 
-
Ra.hlriya Jfotor 
Special Civil Application No. 150 of 1961. 
Kan11.J<Lr Unicm, 
Jfagpur and Otlura 
Das Gupta, J, 
S. v: G11pte, Additional Solicitor-General, G. B. Pai, and 
R. H. Dliebar, for the appellants. 
The respondent did not appear. 
April 3, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
by 
DAs. GUPTA, J.-A short point arises for consideration in 
this appeal. But to understand how the point arises it is neces-
sary to embark on a somewhat lengthy statement of facts. 
Three Road Transport Corporations established under the 
Road T(ansport Corporation Act, 1950 were operating in the 
States of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad in J 956 
when the States E.eorganisation Act, 1956 was enacted. These 
three cdrporations were known as the Bombay State Road 
fransport Corporation, the Provincial Transport Service and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.