The Management of NEKRTC vs Raju. S. Jaydi

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—Though the appeal is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, the appeal is heard for final hearing and disposed of with consent of learned counsel appearing for both the sides.

The records reveal that the respondent herein was undergoing training as a Conductor; his name was included in the select list of Conductors; only after satisfactory completion of the training he would be appointed as Conductor on regular basis; till such time he would be taking only the training. During the course of training, the respondent was found to have not issued 22 tickets to passengers out of total 48 passengers on board. The Departmental enquiry was held and ultimately he was dismissed by the Disciplinary Authority after coming to the conclusion that all the charges leveled against the trainee conductor-respondent are proved.

The order of the Disciplinary Authority was the subject matter of ID No. 43/2012 which was raised by the workman. The Labour Court has also held that the charges leveled against the workman were proved and consequently the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed. The respondent/workman approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 79630/2013 which came to be allowed on 09.07.2013 by referring to Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, . While allowing the said Writ petition learned Single Judge has observed that the Corporation had not obtained permission from the Industrial Tribunal at the time of removal of the workman. Consequently, learned Single Judge directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman and to pay back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

This appeal is filed against the order dated 09.07.2013 passed in W.P. No. 79639/2013.

The very question as to "whether the trainee conductor can be termed as a Corporation Servant/regularly appointed Conductor", was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 100369/2014 (L-KSRTC). After considering the provisions of sub Regulation 1 of Regulation 10 and Regulation 12(2) of the KSRTC Servants (C & R) Regulation, 1971, the Division Bench has observed thus:

"5. Indisputably, appellant was called upon to undergo training as a conductor when his name was included in the selected list of conductors. Sub Regulation (1) of Regulation 10 of the KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulation (for short `C and R Regulations'') disentitles a person in the select list to appointment to a vacant post of conductor. In other words, appellant''s name though found in the selected list, is not a Corporation Servant entitled to an order of appointment to a vacant post of conductor. Appellant was directed to report for training programme. On his failure to report for training is liable to have his name removed from the list of conductors on training in terms of Regulation 12(2) of the Regulations. Therefore, appellant cannot claim a right to an appointment to the vacant post of conductor before successful completion of training as required by `C & R Regulations''. In the absence of an order of appointment to the vacant post of conductor, appellant did not fall within the definition of the term `Corporation Servant'' under the KSRTC Servants (C&R) Regulations, 1971. Appellant being a trainee conductor, therefore, is not a `corporation servant''. It is needless to state that if the appellant is not a `corporation servant'' is not a workman, hence not entitled to a relief under the ID Act, which aspect is not considered by the Labour Court."

(emphasis supplied)

By observing as mentioned supra, the Division Bench has set aside the order passed by the learned Single judge, consequently confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court dismissing the trainee Conductor from service.

On going through the material on record and the regulations mentioned supra, we are of the opinion that the matter in question is fully covered by the judgment of this Court dated 18.08.2014 in W.A. No. 100369/2014. The Division Bench while deciding the said writ appeal has considered various aspects and ultimately concluded that the trainee conductor cannot be equated to a Conductor regularly appointed after completion of the training course. We agree with the said conclusion reached by the Coordinate Division Bench in W.A. No. 100369/2014. Hence the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 79360/2013 is liable to be set aside Accordingly, the same is set aside. Writ appeal is allowed.

In view of disposal of the appeal on merits, LA. No. 4/2014 filed for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and is hereby dismissed.