Point of Law: Misconduct - Once appellant was selected on a temporary basis as a 'trainee conductor' and was deputed to undergo training for a period of two years and during training period, he has been removed from select list, he cannot be considered as 'Corporation Servant' since a corporation servant would not come under definition of 'workman' as stipulated under provisions of Section 2 (s) of Act

JUDGMENT :

This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant trainee conductor against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2015 passed in W.P.No.63014/2009 allowing the writ petition filed by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), by setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court in Reference No.21/2004 on 15.07.2008.

2. It is the case of the respondent/Corporation that the present appellant was appointed as a job trainee conductor in pursuance of the training order dated 09.12.1996 and was deputed to undergo training for a period of two years subject to eight terms and conditions. While he was working as a conductor, on 18.05.1999, he has failed to issue tickets and failed to collect the fare of Rs.3.50/each from 14 passengers. The Inspection Squad gave a report to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has issued a show cause notice to the appellant as to why action should not be taken against him. On the reply filed by the appellant to the Article of Charges, not being satisfied with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to hold an enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after holding an enquiry submitted a report holding that the appellant is guilty of charges leveled against him. Accordingly, a copy of the enquiry report was made available to the appellant and was directed to file objections, if any. The appellant did not file any objections to the said report. The Disciplinary Authority considering the entire material on record held that the misconduct of the appellant has been proved and accordingly, the name of the appellant was deleted from the select list and forfeited the right of the appellant for permanent employment in the Corporation. Accordingly, the appellant herein raised an Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the reference and set aside the order dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and directed the Corporation to reinstate the appellant into service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.

3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, the respondent/Corporation filed Writ Petition No.63014/2009 before this Court contending that the order passed by the Labour Court was without any authority of law and the Labour Court failed to take note of the fact that the appellant could not be considered as a Labourer as he was only a ‘trainee conductor’ who was undergoing training in the Corporation and as such, the dispute raised by the ‘trainee candidate’ could not be considered as an Industrial Dispute and the Labour Court ought not to have allowed the Reference. The learned Single Judge of this Court, considering the entire material on record, by the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court holding that Labour Court was not justified in accepting the reference. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present intra Court appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis.

5. Shri Satish M.S., learned counsel for the appellant trainee conductor contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not maintainable in law as the same was passed in haste and without appreciating the contentions of the appellant. He further contended that the impugned order passed is without appreciating the facts of the case and without verifying the fact that the appellant has attained the status of ‘permanent employee’ in the Corporation, even then illegally he is treated as a Job Trainee conductor. He further contended that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.100369/2014 dated 18.08.2014 (Santosh K.Menasinkai Vs. The Management of NEKRTC) and held that the appellant being ‘trainee conductor’, the Labour