Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore - Appellant
Versus
Labour Court, Mysore - Respondent
Decided On : 08-05-99
Badli Worker - Entitlement to Back Wages - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33-C (2), Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 - Regulation 9, Regulation 10, Regulation 11 - Supreme Court cases Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their workmen, Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, Prakash Cotton Mills pvt. Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, S. Govindaraju v. KSRTC - Badli worker's entitlement to back wages and benefits discussed in light of relevant regulations and Supreme Court precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The fifth respondent, a badli worker, sought back wages from 1981 to 1989 after being reinstated following a previous order. The appellant contended that as a badli worker, the respondent was not entitled to back wages. The respondent argued that his removal from the badli workers list led to loss of service benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the nature of the tenure of badli workers, considering relevant regulations and Supreme Court precedents. It held that a badli worker is not entitled to the same benefits as a regular employee unless specified by regulations. The court modified the previous orders and directed the appellant-Corporation to pay the respondent for 25 days' salary per month from 1981 to 1989.
Issues: The nature of the tenure of badli workers and their entitlement to back wages and benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: A badli worker is not entitled to the same benefits as a regular employee unless specified by regulations. The entitlement to back wages and benefits is determined based on the specific circumstances and regulations governing the employment.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the previous orders and directing the appellant-Corporation to pay the respondent for 25 days' salary per month from 1981 to 1989.
( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are: the fifth respondent was appointed as a badli worker on November 22, 1974. On account of certain misconduct committed by him, his name was removed from the list of badli workers on May 27, 1977. The validity of the order was assailed by the workman before the Labour Court which by its order dated August 13, 1981 directed to restore the name of the fifth respondent in the list of badli workers. Assailing the said order, writ Petition No. 7596/1982 was filed. The writ petition was dismissed on October 28, 1985 and Court directed that the fifth respondent is entitled to all the consequential benefits including reinstatement. Thereafter, workman's name was restored to Badli workers list on January 4, 1989. He reported for duty on April 5, 1989.
( 3 ) AFTER joining into service, the respondent No. 5 filed a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming monetary benefits from August 13, 1981 to april 5, 1989. The Labour Court granted a sum of Rs. 93, 502. 65 ps. Assailing the said order, present writ petition is filed. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. Assailing that, present appeal is filed.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that a badli worker is a temporary workman and he is not a regular employee therefore awarding the back wages and treating him as a regular employee is not proper. Further there is no direction for payment of back wages. The direction i. e. he is entitled for all consequential benefits does not include back wages. Therefore, he is not entitled for the back wages at all.
( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 contended that the workman's name was removed without fault from the badli workers list, otherwise he would have been reguiarised in 1 or l'/2 years later. As his name was removed, he was not regularised, he lost his continuous service and service benefits. Therefore, the learned single judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. The contention that the badli worker is not entitled for the back-wages is not correct, there are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
( 6 ) IN view of the above contentions, the first point that arises for consideration is, what is the nature of the tenure of the badli workman? To appreciate the above point, it is relevant to go through the regulations of the ksrtc.
( 7 ) THE Karnataka State Road Transport corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) regulations, 1982 were issued vide, circular dated January 1, 1983. Regulation 9 deals with mode of selection. Regulation 9 (6) deals with the list of selected candidates prepared by the selection Authority shall be equal to the number of existing vacancies plus vacancies that may arise over a period of one year from the date of publication as may be assessed by the Selection Authority. The Corporation may by resolution in exceptional cases extend the validity of any select list for a period not exceeding six months. Thus, the selection is made to fill-up the existing vacancies and further vacancies that may arise within one year. If selected candidate is not absorbed within one year, the list will lapse, unless the same is extended by six months. If in the extended period of six months he gets the job, he will be appointed otherwise after total period of one year six months the list lapses and the candidate has to get selected again.
( 8 ) REGULATION 10 provides for procedure for appointment. Regulation 10 clause (5) provides that a selected candidate waiting for being appointed regularly in accordance with the regulations may be appointed as a temporary employee before such regular appointment against a short term vacancy or as a substitute in place of regular employee under suspension pending enquiry or suspension
AI
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.