Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 660
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjay Yadav
Bhagwat Singh Thakur
Vs.
State of M.P.
W.P. No. 12645/2010
Decided On: 26.08.2011
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the Corporation to adhere to the specific regulations and standing orders in effect, and the implications of taking recourse to circulars issued by the State Government without proper legal authority.
Headnote:
Compulsory Retirement - Employment Regulations - Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Act 1950, Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Regulation 1950, Regulation 1975, Section 34 of the Act of 1950, Section 3(b) and Section 6(3) of the Act of 1961, Section 21 of the Act of 1961 - The court discussed the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Act 1950, Industrial Disputes Act 1947, and various regulations governing the employment conditions of the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation employees. The court highlighted the power of the State Government to give instructions to the Corporation regarding service conditions of its employees and the procedure for making regulations under the Acts of 1950 and 1961. The court emphasized the necessity for the Corporation to adhere to the specific regulations and standing orders in effect, and the implications of taking recourse to circulars issued by the State Government without proper legal authority.
Fact of the Case:
The Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation compulsorily retired a number of employees who completed 20 years of service or 50 years of age, citing public interest. The employees challenged the retirement, arguing that it was illegal and without proper authority. The Corporation's financial crisis and operational losses were cited as reasons for the mass compulsory retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Corporation's action in retiring its employees prematurely, based on a circular issued by the State Government, was without proper authority and void ab-initio. The court allowed the petitions to the extent that the petitioners would be entitled to consequential benefits, except backwages.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Corporation had the legal authority to compulsorily retire its employees based on a circular issued by the State Government, without adhering to the specific regulations and standing orders in effect.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the Corporation to adhere to the specific regulations and standing orders in effect, and the implications of taking recourse to circulars issued by the State Government without proper legal authority.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed to the extent that the petitioners would be entitled to consequential benefits, except backwages. The court found the Corporation's action in retiring its employees prematurely, based on a circular issued by the State Government, to be without proper authority and void ab-initio.
Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. This order shall govern final disposal of Writ Petition Nos.10213/2010(S), 13483/2010(S), 11824/2010(S), 16253/2010(S),1 3549/ 2010(S), 8800/2010(S), 1645/2010(S), 12305/2010(S), 12322/ 2010(S), 12328/2010(S), 12333/2010(S), 12341/2010(S), 12346/ 2010(S), 12348/2010(S), 12174/2010(S), 14008/2010(S), 13426/ 2010(S), 13550/2010(S), 12640/2010(S), 12314/2010(S), 13144/ 2010(S), 13142/2010(S)15117/2010(S), 11703/2010(S), 12108/ 2010(S), 12642/2010(S), 9554/2010(S), 12725/2010(S), 13935/ 2010(S), 13927/2010(S), 11421/2010(S), 11831/2010 and 11828/2010(S).
2. Number of employees employed in the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation who completed 20 years of service or 50 years of age were compulsorily retired in public interest. It is these orders which are under challenge in these bunch of writ petition which were analogously heard.
3. Common uncontroverted facts are that, the petitioners are permanent employees of Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation posted at various places in the State of M.P. Their service conditions, besides being governed by the Regulations framed by the Corporation are also subject to the provision contained in Madhya Pradesh, Industrial Relation Act 1961, Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act of 1947) as these statutes are applicable to the Corporation.
4. The main plank of submission on behalf of these employees is that, in absence of specific Regulation providing the compulsory retirement being one of the mode of premature retirement, their premature retirement in public interest is illegal and without any authority. On merit the submission is that on the basis of nonexisting facts the petitioners are been prematurely retired.
5. Respondent Corporation is a statutory Corporation duly constituted under Section 3 of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, which provides for that the State Government having regard to the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of road transport; the desirability of co-ordinating any form of road transport with any other form of transport; and the desirability of extending and improving the facilities for' road transport in any area and for providing an efficient and economical system of road transport service therein, may, by notification with official gazette, establish a Road Transport Corporation for the while or any part of the State under such name as may be specified in the notification. The respondent Corporation came to be established as 'public sector' undertaking in 1st June, 1962, styled as Madhya Pradesh State, Road Transport Corporation. Thereafter with the carving out of new State of Chattisgarh, the respondent Corporation is now Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation.
6. Service conditions of the employees in the respondent Corporation is governed by the Regulation framed by the Corporation in exercise of its power under Section 45 of the Act of 1950, which, stipulates:
45. Power to make regulations.-(1) A Corporation may, with the previous sanction of I [the State Government and by notification in the Official Gazette], 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:-
(a) the manner in which, and the purposes for which, persons may be associated with the 2[Board] under section 10; TC"(a) the manner in which, and the purposes for which, persons may be associated with the 2[Board] under section 10;"
(b) the time and place of meetings of the 3 [Board] and the procedure to be followed in regard to transaction of business at such meetings;
(c) the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and 4 [other employees of the Corporation other than the Managing Director, the Chief Accounts Offi
