Sri Sharanappa Sajjan vs The Divisional Controller Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation K.H. Road Bangalore-560027 and The Managing Director KSRTC, Central Offices K.H. Koad Bangalore-560027

Ram Mohan Reddy

Petitioner responded to an advertisement issued by the respondent-Road Transport Corporation on 13.1.1982 inviting applications to fill up the post of Conductor, culminating in an appointment as a Conductor on casual/temporary basis w.e.f. 10.2.1982, where after was brought on probation w.e.f. 13.3.1985 and confirmed in service on 2.5.1987. The Track Union espoused the petitioner''s cause that having been appointed against a substantive vacancy the appointment as casual/temporary conductor w.e.f. 10.2.1982 was illegal, initiated conciliation proceeding under Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, for short ''ID Act'' leading to a failure report, whence the State government by order dt. 8.10.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, registered as IDA 93/99. Parties having submitted their respective pleadings and regard being had to the plea of the respondent-employer that there was an inordinate delay in raising the dispute, the Industrial Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties and their witnesses and taking on record the documents, by award dt. 7.8.2010 held that the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the inordinate delay in raising the dispute in the year 1999, though the cause of action arose on 2/5/1987, and declined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, rejected the petition. Hence this petition.

Sri. V.S. Naik, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the delay, if any, was required to be condoned since it was the right of the petitioner to claim deemed confirmation to the post of conductor on being appointed against a subsisting vacancy coupled with the fact that the petitioner was driven to file applications under the Right to Information Act and secured necessary particulars, Exs.W1 and W2, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the petition.

Apparently, the petitioner was appointed on 10.2.1982 whence he did not question his appointment on casual/temporary basis. If the petitioner had questioned the same at the time of initial appointment, the right of the petitioner could have been determined at that stage whence several other employees too were appointed along with the petitioner. Petitioner having kept silent on his confirmation from service on 2.5.1987, without questioning the order confirming his service in the post of conductor, did so through the Trade union, only in the year 1999, whence the reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal. The hiatus from 2.5.1987 to the year 1999 is not satisfactorily explained. Merely because the petitioner was driven to secure information under the Right to Information Act does not substitute indolence and negligence in not initiating proceeding at the earliest opportunity. In that view of the matter, negligence, indolence and lack of bonafides is attributable to the petitioner as has been rightly and justifiably arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal.

Petition devoid of merit is rejected.