REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.            OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18730 of 2006)  

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn. ...Appellant

Versus   

T.V. Anandappa ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of  the  Karnataka  High  Court  dismissing  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the

appellant. Challenge in this writ petitions was to the award passed by the

Labour  Court,  Bangalore  setting  aside  the  order  of  removal  of  the

respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘workman’) and directing  his re-

instatement with continuity of seniority in the list of Badli Conductors but

without back wages.

3. Factual scenario is almost undisputed.  The respondent was appointed

as  Badli  Conductor  and  disciplinary  enquiry  was  conducted  against  him

with regard to his unauthorized absence from duty. His name was ordered to

be removed from the list of Badli Conductors by order dated 19.12.1995. A

Claim Petition in terms of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the ‘Act’)  was filed. The same was withdrawn and dispute

under Section 10(1-C) of the  Act  was raised which was referred to  the

Labour Court, Bangalore. After recording evidence of the parties the Labour

Court came to the conclusion that the absence from duty on the part of the

respondent was on account of ill health and indisposition . Placing reliance

on  the  medical  certificates  produced  and  the  reasons  assigned  for  his

absence   the  Labour  Court  held  that  the  respondent  was  entitled  to  re-

instatement as Badli Conductor and order of his removal was not justified.   

Order of Labour Court was challenged before the High Court.

4. The stand in the writ  petition was that  there was delay of about  4

years in raising the dispute  while filing the application under Section 10(4-

A) of the Act and although a specific  objection was raised in this regard

before the Labour Court the same was not considered. The charge framed

against   the  workman  about  his  unauthorized  absence  from  duty

2

intermittently for a long period  of time  has not been considered by the

Labour Court while passing the award.  

5. The  workman  contended  that  the  Labour  Court  was  justified  in

holding   that  because   of  his  ailment  he   could  not  join  duty  and  had

remained absent.   

6. So far as the delayed approach is concerned  the respondent-workman

contended that there was no evidence adduced regarding delay  or gainful

employment.  The High Court was of the view that there was no material to

show  that the workman was gainfully employed anywhere. That being  so,

the writ petition was dismissed.  

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that being Badli worker

the question of  any protection  under the Act does not  arise.  The Labour

Court  seems  to  have  proceeded  on  the  basis  that  since  the  medical

certificates  were   submitted  ,  he  should  not  have  been  removed.

Admittedly, his name was struck off on  19.12.1995. For the first time a

grievance was raised in 1999.   The respondent filed claim statement and

ultimately arguments were heard and reference was made.  Learned counsel

3

for the respondent supported the judgment of the Labour Court as affirmed

by the High Court.   

8. Learned counsel for the appellant  is right in his submission that there

was no protection available  under the Act to the respondent.  

9. In view of what has been stated in  Karnataka State Road Transport

Corporation and Anr. v. S.G. Kotturappa and Anr. (2005 (3) SCC 409) the

respondent had no right under the Act. The Labour Court should not have

therefore  adjudicated  the  dispute.  In  essence,  the  reference  made  to  the

Labour Court was incompetent. In the peculiar facts of the case there is no

scope for inclusion of the name of the respondent in the Badli Conductors

and there is no question of any continuity of service.

10 The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.  

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 16, 2009

4