2005 (3) TMI 802 - SC - Indian Laws

Badli Workers' Employment Rights Upheld: Misconduct Justified Termination Despite Natural Justice Principles.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Another Versus S.G. Kotturappa & Anr.

The SC set aside the judgments of the Labour Court and HC, ruling that the Respondents, as Badli workers, lacked a statutory or legal right to continued ... Termination of service - violation of principles of natural justice - seeking reinstated in service of workman with full back wages - HELD THAT:- It is not a case where the Respondent has completed 240 days of service during the period of 12 months preceding such termination as contemplated under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Badli workers, thus, did not acquire any legal right to continue in service. They were not even entitled to the protection under the Industrial Disputes Act nor the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes were required to be complied with before terminating his services, unless they complete 240 days service within a period of twelve months preceding the date of termination. Even where an adverse report regarding the work of a temporary Government servant is made or a preliminary enquiry on the allegation of improper conduct is carried out, the same would not stand in the way of the employer to terminate his service. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. It cannot be put in any straight jacket formula. The principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality. What is needed for the employer in a case of this nature is to apply the objective criteria for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. If the criterias required for arriving at an objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the principles of natural justice may not have to be complied with, in view of the fact that the same stood complied with before imposing punishments upon the Respondents on each occasion and, thus, the Respondents, therefore, could not have improved their stand even if a further opportunity was given. We have noticed hereinbefore the relevant provisions of the Regulations. The status of a Badli cannot be better than a probationer. If the services of the probationer can be terminated for not being able to complete the period of probation satisfactorily, there is no reason as to why the same standard cannot be held to be applicable in the case of Badli worker. Thus, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. Issues Involved:1. Termination of Badli Conductors2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice3. Legal Rights and Status of Badli Workers4. Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act, 19475. Interpretation of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation RegulationsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Termination of Badli Conductors:The Respondents were appointed as Badli Conductors by the Appellant. Their services were terminated due to unsatisfactory performance on 11.11.1983 and 9.9.1980. The Labour Court and the High Court ruled the termination orders invalid, citing non-compliance with principles of natural justice and ordered reinstatement with full back wages.2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:The Labour Court and the High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S. Govindaraju vs. Karnataka S.R.T.C., which mandated an opportunity of hearing before discontinuing service, as the discontinuance led to forfeiture of future employment chances. The Appellant argued that the principles of natural justice were not applicable since the Respondents had admitted past misconduct and had been given opportunities of hearing before minor punishments were imposed.3. Legal Rights and Status of Badli Workers:The Appellant contended that Badli workers did not have a legal right to continue in service based on the terms of their appointment. The Respondents argued that their selection process under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982, granted them a statutory right to continue in service. The Supreme Court noted that Badli workers' rights are not absolute and are governed by both statutory regulations and contractual terms.4. Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:The Appellant argued that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Section 25-F, which requires compliance before termination, did not apply as the Respondents had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding twelve months. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that Badli workers who did not complete 240 days of service did not acquire a legal right to continue and were not entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act.5. Interpretation of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Regulations:The Supreme Court examined the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982, and the previous 1968 Regulations. It was noted that the 1982 Regulations, effective from 1.1.1983, provided for eligibility, disqualifications, and the procedure for appointment. The Court observed that the status of Badli workers is lower than temporary employees and does not grant them a right to permanent employment. The Court also noted that the High Court had declared the last sentence of Sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation 10 invalid, meaning the Respondents did not forfeit their right to be considered for future appointments.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the Labour Court and the High Court, concluding that the Respondents, as Badli workers, did not have a statutory or legal right to continue in service without fulfilling the conditions precedent under the Industrial Disputes Act. The principles of natural justice, while important, did not necessitate further compliance in this case due to the Respondents' admitted misconduct and the opportunities already provided. The appeals were allowed, and the termination of the Respondents was upheld. No costs were ordered.