No vested right of absorption arose under the acquisition law until statutory conditions were fully satisfied and completed

Clause 20(3) of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 did not create automatic absorption of erstwhile contract carriage employees into the Corporation's service. Absorption depended on satisfaction of statutory conditions, including workman status, exclusive employment in connection with the acquired property, prescribed ratio, willingness to join, and completion of screening, equation of posts, and seniority determination. Until those steps were completed, the employees had only an expectation, not an accrued or vested right. The later Act's saving clause preserved only acts done under the Ordinance, while the retrospective statutory scheme displaced the earlier ratio and governed absorption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the employees of the erstwhile contract carriage operators acquired a vested right of absorption in the service of the Corporation under clause 20(3) of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976, and whether that alleged right survived the re-enactment of the law by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976.

Analysis: Clause 20(3) of the Ordinance did not create automatic absorption. Eligibility depended on satisfaction of several conditions, including that the person was a workman, had been exclusively employed in connection with the acquired property, fell within the prescribed ratio, and was willing to become an employee of the Corporation. The statutory scheme also required collection of particulars, screening, equation of posts, and determination of seniority before absorption could take place. Until those steps were completed, the employees had only a hope or expectation and not an accrued or vested right. The saving provision in section 31(2)(i) of the Act preserved only things done or action taken under the Ordinance, and not an abstract right to claim absorption. The Act also introduced a new retrospective ratio under section 19(3), which displaced the earlier proviso in the Ordinance.

Conclusion: No vested or automatic right of absorption arose under the Ordinance, and the later Act validly governed the matter with retrospective effect.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reduction in the absorption ratio failed, and the claim for absorption under the repealed Ordinance was not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A temporary statute does not confer a vested right of future absorption unless the statutory conditions are fully satisfied and the right has actually accrued; a saving clause preserving acts done under the repealed law does not preserve a mere expectation or inchoate claim, especially where the subsequent Act is made retrospective and substitutes a different scheme.

---