http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: HALLI GOWDA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/03/1989

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) RANGNATHAN, S. VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR 1117            1989 SCR  (1) 936  1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 267 JT 1989 (1)   498  1989 SCALE  (1)552

ACT:     Statutory Organisations--One set of daily wage employees cannot be discriminated as against another in the matter  of regularisation of service and grant of time scale pay.

HEADNOTE:     The petitioners who had served the  respondent--Corpora- tion  for long periods on daily wage basis prayed for  regu- larisation  of  services and grant of time  scale  pay  from their dates of initial appointment on the ground that others similarly placed had been granted these benefits.     The Court, after noticing that there were  discrepancies in the factual position adopted by the parties,     DIRECTED: The matter to be examined is with reference to factual  position as to when the 19 persons in Annexure  ’A’ were initially employed and when they have been  regularised as  against the initial employment of each of the  petition- ers.  This  can  be done only by  reference  to  appropriate records. We direct that a senior officer of the  Corporation shall be named by respondent No. 1 to look into these  alle- gations  and  at the time the question is examined  by  such officer the petitioners shall be given appropriate  opportu- nity of being heard, if asked for through counsel also,  and all  relevant documents should be looked into  to  ascertain whether  the  claim of the petitioners that they  have  been discriminated  against in the facts indicated in their  writ petition  particularly  with reference to  Annexure  ’A’  is correct;  and in case it is found that the petitioners  have not  been given the benefit which has given to the 19  daily rated Conductors specified in Annexure ’A’, petitioners  may be conferred the same benefit as has been extended to  those 19 persons unless the respondent is able to assign satisfac- tory and cogent reasons and states as to why petitioners are not  entitled to the same benefit. This would be so  on  the footing  that  regularisation does not require  a  specified period of service to have been put in. [939E-H]

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1325 of 1987. 937 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)     P. Rangaswamy, K.K. Gupta and Capt. Virendera Kumar  for the Petitioners. K.R. Nagaraja and R.S. Hegde, for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER     Thirty-two petitioners in this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution are Bus Conductors in the employment  of the  Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,  respondent No. 1. They have alleged that the respondent-Corporation  is a  statutory organisation and is ’State’ within the  meaning of Art. 12. The normal practice prevalent in the Corporation is  to initially appoint Conductors on daily wage basis  and regularise  them in due course. According to them, 19  daily wage Conductors as mentioned in Annexure ’A’ to the petition were  regularised and brought on the time-scale of pay  with effect  from the original date of their employment as  daily wage  Conductors, while though the petitioners  have  served for quite a long period they have not yet been  regularised. They  have alleged discrimination and claimed relief on  the basis  of  Art. 14. They have asked for a direction  to  the Transport  Corporation  to bring them on the  time-scale  by regularisation  from  the date each of them came to  be  em- ployed by the Corporation, as stated in Annexure ’B’.     The  Corporation in its return to the rule has  accepted the position that it is a statutory body created under s.  3 of  the Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950. There is  no challenge to the allegation of the petitioners that  initial appointment  is on daily wage basis and as and when  regular vacancies  arise  the daily rated employees are  brought  on time-scale of pay and services are regularised. Paragraph  9 of the counter-affidavit specifically challenged the  asser- tion  of the petitioners that 19 similarly placed  employees were  confirmed on the date of initial employment  on  daily rated basis. The plea in paragraph 9 is as follows:               "The   information  furnished  in   Annexure-A               showing  that 19 persons who were  working  in               different  divisions  have been  appointed  on               time-scale  on  the same  date  is  absolutely               wrong  and  misleading. The  petitioners  have               sworn               938               false  affidavit without making any effort  to               verify  the  factual  position.  The  date  of               confirmation in majority of the cases has been               shown  in  Annexure-A  as the  date  of  their               appointment just to prejudice this Court."     Learned  counsel for the petitioners placed reliance  on the  decision of this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour  v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 122 and an order made on 14th of July, 1988 in Writ Petition No. 8307-11/83 which  is still  awaiting  final disposal. The facts of  the  reported decision  were  very different. It would  be  sufficient  to refer to paragraph 2 of the judgment:               "The principal complaint of the petitioners is               that even though many of them have been  work-               ing  for the last ten years as casual  labour-               ers,  the wages paid to them are very low  and               far  less than the salary and allowances  paid               to  the  regular employees of  the  Posts  and               Telegraphs Department belonging to each of the               categories  referred to above and secondly  no               scheme has been prepared by the Union of India

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             to  absorb them regularly in its  service  and               consequently  they have been denied the  bene-               fits,  such  as  increments,  pension,   leave               facilities  etc.  etc. which  are  enjoyed  by               those who have been recruited regularly.  They               allege  that they are being exploited  by  the               Union of India-"     Petitioners  have not made these allegations  and  their sole grievance is of discrimination on the basis that  while they have not been regularised though they have been serving for  a  good  number  of   years--in  some  cases  about  14 years--the 19 persons named in Annexure ’A’ have been  regu- larised  from the date of initial employment. It is,  there- fore,  not necessary to refer to the decision. The order  in the  pending writ application is also on a different set  of facts and, therefore, need not be further referred to.     At  the  hearing of the  writ  application,  petitioners relied upon a draft seniority list published by the Corpora- tion in support of their stand while the Corporation on  the basis of a document appended to the counter-affidavit  main- tained  that the particulars were wrong and since the  docu- ment  was  only at the draft stage  and  mistakes  appearing therein were yet to be corrected, no reliance can be  placed on the particulars appearing therein and the original record should be referred to. 939     In view of the pointed question raised by the  petition- ers  and  the  denial in the return, we  made  an  order  on 28.2.1989 to the following effect:               "The  dispute has arisen before  us  regarding               the identity of all the persons. The Registrar               General  is directed to assign an  Officer  to               examine  the  photostat copy of  the  Original               Record  in possession of learned  counsel  for               the respondents for the purpose of determining               whether there is any discrepancy between  that               record  and  the printed list which  has  been               furnished  before  us in relation  to  the  34               petitioners  as well as the 19  employees  set               out in Annexure ’A’ annexed to the Writ  Peti-               tion." The  report  dated 2nd of March, 1989 on the  basis  of  the printed  document and the photostat copies of  records  made available  at the time of examination to the  Officer  shows that there are discrepancies. The original record,  however, is not available in the Court.     It is not disputed before us by counsel for the respond- ents  that in case benefit of regularisation has  been  con- ferred  on  daily rated employees from the date  of  initial employment  and  such benefit has not been extended  to  the petitioners,  the  grievance grounded upon Art.  14  of  the Constitution  would  be valid. The matter  to  be  examined, therefore, is with reference to factual position as to  when the  19 persons in Annexure ’A’ were initially employed  and when  they  have  been regularised as  against  the  initial employment of each of the petitioners. This can be done only by reference to appropriate records. We direct that a senior officer of the Corporation shall be named by respondent No.. 1  to look into these allegations and at the time the  ques- tion  is examined by such officer the petitioners  shall  be given  appropriate opportunity of being heard, if asked  for through  counsel also, and all relevant documents should  be looked into to ascertain whether the claim of the  petition- ers  that they have been discriminated against in the  facts indicated in their writ petition particularly with reference

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

to Annexure ’A’ is correct; and in case it is found that the petitioners  have not been given the benefit which has  been given to the 19 daily rated Conductors specified in Annexure ’A’,  petitioners may be conferred the same benefit  as  has been  extended to those 19 persons unless the respondent  is able to assign satisfactory and cogent reasons and states as to  why  petitioners are not entitled to the  same  benefit. This would be so on the footing that regularisation does not require  a specified period of service to have been put  in. The respondent- 940 Corporation  shall designate the authority within two  weeks and the enquiry by him in the manner directed above shall be completed  within three months. On the basis of  the  report furnished  by such authority the respondent is  directed  to take a final decision within two months thereafter. There shall be no direction as to costs. H.L.C. 941