-L IN THE HIGH .:C!URT QF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATES TEES THE 24111 DAY OF !*.'!.A..'.,-H 2()08_p. _d BETWEEN: The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, K.H. Road, BANGALORE; . ._ By its Chief Law Qfiicer. .. PE'I'I'I'IONER (By Smt.H.R.Reni11s Union; 234, Utf.;a_r1a.r_1hi,_'1\J11;tt"Roe1d,»* _ MYSORE, . " .. RESPONDENT
my si¥i§d’:’v;ee–s. Nailc. Adv*;3*’ ”
. r’ede’rhis W1fi_tvVPet3ifion is filed under Articles 2-26 65 227 of the
Constitution of india praying to quash the order in reference
“A _No.89f96»._’Dt;f}1.12.2000 vide Ann-W by the Induatriai ‘T’rii::unai,
~~as_:’:a1eo comendum Dt.27.04.2001 in Ref.No.89l1996
% d d fie Indnsnial Tribunal, Mysore vide Ann-X, etc.,.
‘ Petition coming on for Hearing this day. the Court
‘ .__””1:na;;:ie the foilowing:
_.___:–
An award dated 1″ December 2000 in Ref.No.’9[‘1996 is
called in question.
,-
éafik
administration. it is the p”‘e ee CI
-2-
2. The Union sought for reference of the dispute on the
the .”.!m=..’.’;,’e.’r.-er.! of ….-S’.
l :-
{.l.; vrntr-urea:
serdority ctii other benefits to on’ _
Conductor, M.C.No.71O with–retrospeietitge ‘ejffsct if},
violation of of,…sef:£iiemeni*-. dated f
17.2.1962, 18.3.1974, 16.2.1°978..qizd 15. 1’1t.19s9?«_. »
.12) LF not what other relief! ;,._ the” s_¢_zi::!.u “is
entitled to? ‘ r ” *’ V
3. On these issues; p-thc’-,__ ffIi}¢d;” Tribunal on an
interpretation of workman has
completed and he is appointed
after he is entitled for
the completion of 240 days and
directed ‘Vpetitionei”%Vp’Cotporstion to implement the settlement
V dated» 111. 1989,, ”
4._ Counsel appearing for the Corporation
snbmittedi settlement dated 15.11.1989 is not by the
é ivhut it is only confined to Mysore Division and
V’ V’ snbmitted that. the settlement has to be only by the
not by the divisions. It is also submitted that,
post of Conductor by adopting the multi stage process. first by
I
Division, Mysore justtfied in denying tEnte_,scxtie: M
/!\
“‘*tii?y’ing the ave-.il.abL.i.,_; of pests. h-1r.ling -1’ test,
conducting interviews and thereafter pre’pm”inf.z the
showing persons likely to be absorbed in a
then gradually include the Pfirsons ,_€_ielec1;”1ist.:te: ‘V
list, wherein the persons in Badli
and when the vacancy arises
basis depending upon the numlier,V:’of_p days their
services are utilized in a perscns in Badli
lis. a… ta1«:..n on p. completion of
and further .tlaat;V:lsiriee’~tht’§r’*”””de”t w”s apminted
as a services were engaged as
when the accordingly. he is paid and from
the Barlli ” he was on probation and thereafter, on
V’campletionV. of the ilprotiation period, he is absorbed as regular
cannot claim the regularization w.e.f.
completing days of his service. It is also submitted that
“%.”‘~r- s”e”rr.itted that fie claita is te+.r.r.~np-.=…t1’..e; FI.1.rt..h.er it is
” ..__'”‘sul2mitted that, even from the da” of “t”‘-me”t. tir’ ddifpute is
lljraised nearly after 7 years and submitted that the industrial’ ‘ ‘
Tribunal was not justified in granting retrospective relief. It is
further submitted that, the issue was in respect of four
I K’ V
settlements whereas, the Industrial Tribunal has considered only
one settlement and not all, all the settlements an’. independent
they are in supersession of earlier settlement.
5. Sri.V.S.Naik. learned Cou.nse1__sfor*'”thei:
submitted that, the settlement dated
no fault can be found from said» *
submitted that, in terms of the settlement. one ithefiparties by
name S.S..,sns.ka:’ …a._ b_.e-.f’_o,’-;_n_sied he is junior to the
entitled for the ..it1eeiieetive.re1ie£ ‘the said settlers–‘t Wes
not given efi’ect..td:.insofa::’asl1*e’s1iondei;.this concemed. respondent
sought for xefeienee…__ He __su_btnitted that the Reference Court
on consideration ofVthe.’sett*1eii1cnt-has granted the relief.
It is no’t’=in______dispute that the is'”e 1’-‘fe’T”d “‘ the
involves the consideration of four setitlements,
ea meg, i196t2. =ii9i’k4, 1978 and 1939 settlement. However, the
has considered only one settlement dated
it ‘V V 1,:198″9 and has not taken into account the other settlements
effect. Further the Industrial Tribunal has also not
it V’ eonsidemd the eflect of of oonsequential relief.
A’ Admitted._,’, the consequential __1_’_f sought for by the respondent
-..-._J…_
includes the flxn’:ll..l. n *1′ se”””it:y’. the gran. o. pm…o..~.on. wl.1_’._h
will have a result in aifectzing the other employees. whose
seniority is already fixed. In such circumstances, the
‘!’ri..una1 only ….-1yi..g the 1989 settlement eiier1«
be granted to the respondent Wit’l”1’ifi.
other employees, in my view, the.eonon-consideratiriui. *’
issue by the Industrial Tribunal ,justiificd}f V
Tribunal is required to consider its cniiretjf including
the earlier settlements and tlieliiie-j1_s3i§.)cindent could be
granted with the xeiiefil it«:iiecesseiyv_ioVf’remit the matter to
the l__dus1_:rial , ,
Accdrdidg1iy;idh: _;W1it4.:Petition is allowed. The awand dated
lat Decemberu._24O00’i;n’i?ef.!§o;$§/31996 is quashed. }The matter is
remitted; to _1j.he to consider the issue referred
2.: i._ four months from the datie of receipt of
sd!-‘
juéqe ‘
KNMI-