Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Sri. S Ramachandra Rao on 28 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18444-DB
WA No. 1016 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1016 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC)
BENGALURU RURAL DIVISION
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES
KH ROAD
SHANTINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
...APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. SANJEEV B L.,ADVOCATE)
AMBIKA H B
Location: AND:
High Court of
Karnataka 1. SRI. S RAMACHANDRA RAO
S/O S SUBBA RAO
AGED MAJOR
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY
KSRTC AND BMTC UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION
NO. 23, 4th MAIN ROAD
MATHIKERE EXTENSIONS
BANGALORE - 560 054
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18444-DB
WA No. 1016 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 08.06.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP. No. 6419/2021 (L-KSRTC) AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE WP No. 6419/2021, AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.CF
INSUFFICIENT/SUFFICIENTAPPEAL IS IN TIME/BARRED BY
TIMETHE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS NOT
COMPLIED OFFICE OBJECTIONS1. COURT FEE 100/- TO BE
NOT GOOD. 2. BLANK DATES TO BE FILLED AT SYNOPSIS 3.
PARAGRAPH NUMBERS TO BE CORRECTED AT WRIT
APPEAL MEMORANDUM AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMNARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr. B. S Shrinivas with learned
advocate Mr. B. L Sanjeev for the appellant and learned advocate
Mr. K. Shrinivas for the respondent.
2. Preferred under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,
1961, this writ appeal seeks to call in question the judgment and
order dated 08.06.2023 of learned Single Judge. Thereby, learned
Single Judge allowed the petition of the respondent herein by
confirming the judgment and award dated 03.02.2020 of the
Industrial Tribunal passed in Reference No.213 of 2012. By the
said judgment and award of the tribunal confirmed by learned
Single Judge, the respondent-workman was granted the benefit of
NC: 2024:KHC:18444-DB
time scale in view that he had completed continuous 180 days of
service from the date of entry.
2. The facts to be noticed are inter alia that the workman was
working as a badli driver under the appellant-Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation from 07.07.1993 to 16.08.1998. His
appointment was made pursuant to the notification issued by the
Corporation in the year 1992. From 07.08.1998 his services came
to be placed on probation by fixing a time scale.
3. The workman felt aggrieved on the ground that the time
scale was not granted with effect from the date of completion of
180 days from the initial date of entry into service. In Reference
No.213 of 2012 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, the
petitioner succeeded. The judgment and award of the tribunal when
challenged before learned Single Judge, the same was confirmed.
4. One of the aspects urged by the Corporation before learned
Single Judge was the delay by contending that reference was
raised after about fourteen years, and that on that ground, the
reference was liable to be rejected. The said contention was rightly
NC: 2024:KHC:18444-DB
negatived by learned Single Judge inasmuch as, the petitioner was
in service from 07.07.1993 to 13.01.1998.
5. When his probation was started and the time scale was given
from a particular date, the workman asserted his claim that time
scale ought to have been granted by counting 180 days from the
initial date of joining the services. It could not be said that the
workman was indolent in agitating his rights when he was in
service and raised the dispute in the above score. It could hardly
be said that passage of time was in nature of delay because of any
culpability on part of the workman.
5.1 The case of the workman was strong and weightier on merits
for receiving the benefit of time scale. Time scale benefit was
available to the workman as per clause 22(ii) of the settlement
which was arrived at between the management and the
Employees' Union on 16.12.1978.
5.2 The applicability of the settlement is not disputed.
Thereunder the time scale was to be fixed after completion of 180
days of continuous service. It provided that an employee working
for 180 days including weekly off and other holidays continuously
NC: 2024:KHC:18444-DB
would be brought on time scale of pay. Admittedly, the workman
remained in continuous service from 07.07.1993 to 16.08.1998.
Thereafter, he was placed on probation.
6. Neither the contention on the count of projected delay was
acceptable nor on merits any defence was available to the
appellant-employer. The objection on part of appellant-Corporation
was meritless. The judgment and award of the tribunal, confirmed
by learned Single Judge, did not book any error to be liable to be
interfered in this appeal.
7. The present appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory
applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed
of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
THM
