SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Appellant
Versus
Gopinath Gundachar Char, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 1967,
D/- 6-7-1967.
Advocates Appeared
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar Advocates for Appellant; M/s. R. B. Datar and S. N. Prasad, Advocates for Respondent.
Judgement
BACHAWAT, J. : The respondent was a class III employee in the statistical department of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation In October 1981, he was temporarily promoted to act as statistical superintendent at Hassan. On July 21, 1964, the General Manager of the Corporation issued a notice inviting applications for appointments to class II Junior posts of (a) assistant/divisional statisticians and (b) labour welfare officers on a pay of Rupees 220/- per month in the pay scale of Rupees 220-15-400-EB-20-500 plus the usual dearness and other allowances admissible under the Rules. On August 11, 1964, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court at Mysore claiming that the Corporation had no power to issue the notice and praying for an order quashing it. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the notice. The Corporation has filed this appeal by special leave. For the proper appreciation of the point in issue, it is necessary to read Ss. 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (b) 19 (1) (c), 34, 45 (1) and 45 (2) (c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (Act No. 64 of 1950) :
"14. (1) Every Corporation shall have a Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and a Chief Accounts Officer appointed by the State Government.
(2) A Corporation may appoint such other officers and servants as it consider necessary for the efficient performance of its functions.
(3) The conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of the officers and servants of a Corporation shall-
(a) as respects the Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and the Chief Accounts Officer be such as may be prescribed, and
(b) as respects the other officers and servants be such as may, subject to the provisions of Section 34, be determined by regulations made under this Act.
19 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Corporation shall have power-
(a) to operate road transport services in the State and in any extended area
(b) to provide for any ancillary service;
(c) to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including fair wages, establishment of provident fund, living accommodation, places for rest and recreation and other amenities.
34 (1) The State Government may, after consultation with a Corporation established by such Government, give to the Corporation general instructions to be followed by the Corporation, and such instructions may include directions relating to the recruitment, conditions of service and training of its employees, wages to be paid to the employees, reserves to be maintained by it and disposal of its profits or stocks.
2. In the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under this Act, the Corporation shall not depart from any general instructions issued under sub-section (1) except with the previous permission of the State Government.
45 (1) A Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made "thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
* * * * * *
(c) the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation other than the Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and the Chief Accounts Officer,"
(2) Admittedly, no regulations were framed by the Corporation under S. 45 (2) (c) prescribing the conditions of appointment and service add the scales of pay of its officers and servants. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it was stated that the Corporation was taking necessary steps for the framing of the regulations. The High Court following its earlier decision in Karnakar Mangesh Desai v. State of Mysore, (1966) 1 Mys LJ 72: held that until regulations were framed by the Corporation under Section 45 (2) (c) with the previous sanction of the State Govern
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.