1979 (9) TMI 196 - SC - Indian Laws

Contract Carriage Employees' Absorption Rights Not Vested Under Karnataka Law

The Court held that employees of contract carriage operators did not acquire a vested right to absorption with the Karnataka State Road Transport ... - Issues Involved:1. Vested right of absorption of employees.2. Legislative changes and their impact.3. Interpretation of saving clauses and rights under repealed ordinances.Summary:1. Vested Right of Absorption of Employees:The primary issue was whether the employees of the erstwhile contract carriage operators in Karnataka acquired a vested right of absorption in service with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) u/s 20(3) of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976. The Court concluded that there was no automatic absorption of employees as several steps were required to determine eligibility and willingness for absorption. The employees did not acquire any vested right to absorption under the ordinance.2. Legislative Changes and Their Impact:The Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976, was replaced by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, which altered the ratio for absorption of employees. The ordinance prescribed a ratio of 7.9 employees per vehicle, including conductors, while the Act reduced it to 4.45 employees per vehicle, excluding conductors. The Court held that the Act, being retrospective, replaced the ordinance's provisions from the date of its promulgation, thereby altering the basis of absorption.3. Interpretation of Saving Clauses and Rights Under Repealed Ordinances:The saving clause in s. 31(2) of the Act preserved actions taken under the repealed ordinance but did not preserve abstract rights. The Court emphasized that the mere right to take advantage of the repealed ordinance's provisions is not a right accrued. The saving clause was intended to preserve only the things done and actions taken, not the rights and privileges acquired under the ordinance. The Court found that no action was taken under the ordinance that would grant the employees a right to absorption.Conclusion:The appeal and writ petitions were dismissed, with the Court holding that the employees did not acquire a vested right to absorption under the ordinance, and the legislative changes made by the Act were valid and effective from the date of the ordinance's promulgation. There was no order as to costs.