Karnataka High Court
Sri H Rajanna vs The Divisional Controller on 27 February, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8076
WP No. 43055 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 43055 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI H RAJANNA
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
MARALOORU, SSIT POST,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT,
TUMKUR - 572 011
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. S B LAKSHMI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Digitally signed KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
by A K CORPORATION, BENGALURU RURAL DIVISION,
CHANDRIKA BENGALURU - 560 001
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL THE ENTIRE FILE
OF REFERENCE NO.9/2014 FROM THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL
LABOUR COURT & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8076
WP No. 43055 of 2017
ORDER
The petitioner, claiming to be working as Driver-cum-
Conductor at respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation (for short "Corporation") is before this Court,
aggrieved by rejection of Reference No.9/2014 by the
Principal Labour Court, Bangalore under award dated
03.10.2016.
2. Heard learned counsel Smt.S.B.Lakshmi for
petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner joined services of the respondent-
Corporation as Driver-cum-Conductor (Trainee) on
19.04.2006. On the allegation of unauthorized absence, a
departmental enquiry was initiated and after enquiry, the
petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated
11.08.2009. The petitioner raised a dispute and sought
reference of the dispute. The Government, by order dated
02.01.2014 referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The
NC: 2024:KHC:8076
Labour Court, on consideration of the entire issue, under
impugned award dated 03.10.2016 rejected the reference
solely on the ground that the petitioner is not a servant of
the Corporation and he is not entitled to any relief under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "ID Act").
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner initially was appointed as Driver-cum-Conductor
(Trianee). Subsequently, he is continued as Driver-cum-
Conductor which is deemed to be recognizing service.
Therefore, it is submitted that the Labour Court without
going into merits of the case could not have rejected the
reference only on the ground that the petitioner is not a
Corporation servant.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka for
respondent-Corporation would submit that it is settled
legal position of law that a trainee is not a Corporation
servant and in that regard, learned counsel would place
reliance on the decisions of Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.1039/2022 disposed of on 30.11.2022;
NC: 2024:KHC:8076
W.A.No.100556/2015 disposed of on 02.08.2021;
W.A.No.100591/2015 disposed of on 09.12.2019; and
judgment dated 15.10.2014 in W.A.No.100383/2015.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view
that the Labour Court rightly rejected the reference on the
ground that the petitioner who is Driver-cum-Conductor
(Trainee) is not a Corporation servant and he would not be
entitled for any relief under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
which does not warrant interference.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the above
referred decisions has made it clear that a trainee
employee of the respondent-Corporation is not a workman
within Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and they are not
Corporation servants. Relevant portion of the judgment in
W.A.No.1039/2022 disposed of on 30.11.2022 reads as
follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:8076
"Section 2(s) of the Act does not
contemplate trainee as a workman. In the
instant case admittedly, the petitioner was only
a trainee and he was not brought on a
permanent rolls. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of MUKESH K.TRIPATHI v/s. SR.DIVN.
MANAGER, L.I.C. & ORS reported in AIR 2004
SC 4179 held that the definition of a workman
under Section 2(s) of the Act includes
apprentice. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of W.A.No.100369/2014
disposed of on 18.08.2014 held that when the
appellant was called up to undergo training and
his name was included in the selected list, he
falls under sub.Regulation-1 of Regulation 10 of
the KSRTC Servants (Cadre and Recruitment)
Regulation and further held that the appellant
does not fall within the definition of term
'Corporation Servant' under the Act. The
petitioner has not produced an order of
appointment to the vacant post. In the
absence of an order of appointment to the
vacant post, the petitioner do not fall within the
definition the term 'Corporation Servant' and he
being a trainee and not a workman under the
definition of workman as defined under Section
NC: 2024:KHC:8076
2(s) of the Act and rightly dismissed the claim
statement filed by the petitioner. Learned
Single Judge on re-appreciation of entire
material on record, was justified in upholding
the order passed in I.D.No.15/2016 has rightly
passed the impugned order. We do not find
any grounds to interfere with the impugned
order. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with
the impugned order."
8. Thus, following the dictum in the above referred
decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, the present
writ petition also stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MPK
CT:JR
