{"id":47731,"date":"1964-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964"},"modified":"2018-06-27T19:42:36","modified_gmt":"2018-06-27T14:12:36","slug":"the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964","title":{"rendered":"The Motor Transport Controller, … vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor … on 3 April, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Motor Transport Controller, … vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor … on 3 April, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1690, \t\t 1964 SCR (7) 639<\/div>\n
Author: K D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE  MOTOR TRANSPORT CONTROLLER, MAHARASHTRA  STATE,  BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPROVINCIAL RASHTRIYA MOTOR KAMGAR UNION,NAGPUR AND ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n03\/04\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR 1690\t\t  1964 SCR  (7) 639\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Dispute--Termination  of  Service--Validity\t  of\nnotice--Abolition  of  all  posts  of  an   establishmeut-If\namounts\t to reduction of posts-Road  Transport\tCorporations\nAct 1950(64 of 1950), as amended by Act 87 of 1956, s. 47-A-\nCentral\t Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes  Settlement\nAct, 1947 (C.P. & Berar 23 of 1947), s. 31 Sch.\t II, Item 1.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nAs a result of the passing of the States Reorganisation Act,\n1956,  Vidharbha  area\twhich was in  the  State  of  Madhya\nPradesh\t became\t part of the State of Bombay  and  when\t the\nState of Bombay was divided under the Bombay  Reorganisation\nAct,   1950,  the  said\t area  remained\t in  the  State\t  of\nMaharashtra.   Before 1956. the Bombay State Road  Transport\nCorporation  and Provincial Services established  under\t the\nRoad Transport Corporations Act, 1950, were operating in the\nStates\tof Bombay and Madhya Pradesh respectively.  To\tmeet\nthe  situation\tarising\t from  these  territorial   changes,\nParliament   made   amendments\t to   the   Road   Transport\nCorporations  Act,  1950, by which, inter alia s.  47-A\t was\nintroduced providing for the reconstitution,  reorganisation\nand  dissolution of the corporations established  under\t the\nAct.  On May, 27, 1961, the Central Government made an Order\nunder s. 47-A of the Act, inter alia, approving a scheme for\nthe reorganisation of the Bombay State Road Transport  Corp-\noration\t and amalgamating with it the  Provincial  Transport\nServices  which\t had, under the\t Reorganisation\t Act,  1956,\nbecome\ta commercial undertaking of the State of Bombay\t and\nwhich had been operating in the Vidharba area.\tClause\t9(1)\nof  this provided for the abolition of all the posts in\t the\nProvincial  Transport  Services\t and for  discharge  of\t all\npersons\t holding  such\tposts for service  but\tgiving\tsuch\npeople\tan  option  of\tcontinuing in  the  service  of\t the\nMaharashtra  State Road Transport Corporation.\tNotice\tter-\nminating  the  services\t of  the  persons  employed  by\t the\nProvincial  Transport Services (operating in Vidharba)\twere\nissued.\t  Thereupon, two former employees of the  Provincial\nTransport  Services  and the Union of the  workmen  of\tthat\nconcern made an application before the High Court of  Bombay\nunder  Arts.  226  and 227 of  the  Constitution  of  India,\nchallenging  the  validity, inter alia, of  the\t notices  of\ntermination of service served on the employees on the ground\nthat  the action taken by the Government in  abolishing\t the\nposts and issuing notices of termination of services of\t the\nemployees  was bad as it contravened, inter alia,  the\tpro-\nvisions\t of  s.\t 31  of\t the  Central  Provinces  and  Berar\nIndustrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947.\nHeld:\t  Abolition of all posts of an establishment did not\namount to reduction of posts within the meaning of Item 1 of\nthe   Schedule\tII  of\tthe  Central  Provinces\t and   Berar\nIndustrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947; and the Government\norder  abolishing the posts and terminating the services  of\nthe employees.\n640\ndid  not amount to a change within the meaning of s.  31  of\nthe  Act.   The Government was, therefore, not\trequired  to\nfollow the procedure mentioned in s. 31.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 742 of  1963.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated July 4, 5, 1961  of
\nthe  Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) at Nagpur\t in  Special
\nCivil Application No. 150 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
S.   V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General, G. B. Pai,\t and
\nR.   H. Dhebar, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent did not appear.\n<\/p>\n
April 3, 1964.\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDAS GUPTA, J.-A short point arises for consideration in this
\nappeal.\t But to understand how the point arises it is neces-
\nsary to embark on a somewhat lengthy statement of facts.
\nThree Road Transport Corporations established under the Road
\nTransport Corporation Act, 1950 were operating in the States
\nof  Bombay,  Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad in 1956  when\t the
\nStates\tReorganisation Act, 1956 was enacted.\tThese  three
\ncorporations  were known as the Bombay State Road  Transport
\nCorporation, the Provincial Transport Service and the  State
\nTransport  Marathewada\trespectively.  As a  result  of\t the
\nreorganisation of the States under the States Reorganisation
\nAct,  1956  the former State of Bombay lost certain  of\t its
\nterritories  to\t the newly formed State of Mysore  and\tsome
\nareas  to  the State of Rajasthan.  On the other  hand,\t the
\nState  of  Bombay gained the Marathewada from the  State  of
\nHyderabad  and the Vidharbha area from the State  of  Madhva
\nPradesh and certain other areas from the then existing State
\nof Saurashtra and the State of Kutch.  To meet the situation
\narising\t from these territorial changes,  Parliament  passed
\nthe  Road  Transport Corporation Amendment Act,\t 1956,\tthus
\namending the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950.   Section
\n47-A  which was introduced by the amending Act provides\t for
\nthe  reconstitution, reorganisation and dissolution  of\t the
\nCorporations established under s. 3 of the Act.\t On December
\n31,  1956 an order was made by the Central Government  under
\nthe  provisions\t of  this section  approving  a\t scheme\t for
\nreorganisation\tsubmitted by the Government of\tBombay.\t  By
\nthis  scheme  those  areas in which the\t Bombay\t State\tRoad
\nTransport   Corporation\t  had  been   operating\t  but\twere
\ntransferred under the State Reorganisation Act to the States
\nof  Mysore and Rajasthan were excluded from the area of\t the
\noperation  of the Bombay State Road  Transport\tCorporation.
\nThis  came into force from the 1st January,  1957.   Another
\nconsequence  of the States Reorganisation Act was  that\t the
\ntwo commercial undertakings which were known as
\n641<\/span>
\nthe Provincial Transport Services, and the State  Transport,
\nMarathewada, became the commercial undertakings of the State
\nof  Bombay.   Further, territorial changes occurred  in\t the
\nState  of Bombay in the year 1960.  By the Bombay  Reorgani-
\nsation\tAct, No. II of 1960, the State of Bombay  was  again
\ndivided;  part of what was in the former State,\t was  formed
\ninto a new State by the name of the State of Gujarat,  while
\nthe remaining area was named, the State of Maharashtra.\t  In
\nconsequence  of\t this some other areas were excluded  by  an
\norder under s. 47-A of the Act from the area of operation of
\nthe Bombay State Road Transport Corporation.  The  situation
\nthen was the State Transport, Marathewada, was operating  in
\nthe  Maharashtra area, the Provincial Transport Service\t was
\noperating  in  the Vidharbha area while in the rest  of\t the
\nMaharashtra State the Bombay State Transport Corporation was
\noperating.   It\t was when things stood like  this  that\t the
\nCentral Government made an order on the 27th May, 1961 under
\ns.  47-A of the Amending Act.  By this order it\t approved  a
\nscheme\tfor  the  reorganisation of the\t Bombay\t State\tRoad
\nTransport  Corporation and amalgamation with it of  the\t two
\nother transport undertakings of the State Government,  viz.,
\nthe Provincial Transport Services, and the State  Transport,
\nMarathewada.   After the reorganisation the Corporation\t was
\nto  be\tknown  as  the\tMaharashtra  State  Road   Transport
\nCorporation.   Clause  9(1) of this Order provided  for\t the
\nabolition  of  all the posts in the  two  undertakings,\t the
\nProvincial  Transport  Services,  and  the  State  Transport
\nMarathewada,  and for discharge of all persons holding\tsuch
\nposts from service.  There was a provision, however,  giving
\nsuch  people option either of taking terminal benefits\tsuch
\nas  compensation, pension, or gratuity to which they may  be
\nentitled under the rules applicable to them or of continuing
\nas from the 1st July 1961 in the service of the\t Maharashtra
\nState  Road  Transport Corporation.  Sub-clause 2 of  cl.  9
\nprovided  that every person who as a result of the  exercise
\nof   such  option  is  continued  in  the  service  of\t the
\nMaharashtra State Transport Corporation shall be entitled to
\nbe  employed  by  that Corporation on  the  same  terms\t and
\nconditions,   including\t pay  as  were\tapplicable  to\t him
\nimmediately  before  the  appointed day\t and  to  count\t his
\nservice\t under the previous corporations for  all  purposes.
\nSubclause 3 of cl. 9 was in these words: –\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Nothing in sub-paragraph )2) shall be  deemed
\n\t      to  affect the right of the Maharashtra  State
\n\t      Road  Transport  Corporation, subject  to\t the
\n\t      provisions   of\tS.   77\t  of   the    Bombay
\n\t      Reorganisation  Act,  1960  (11  of  1960)  to
\n\t      determine or vary after the appointed day, the
\n\t      conditions  of  service of any person  who  is
\n\t      continued in the service of the Corporation”.
\n\t      L\/P D)ISCI–21
\n\t      642<\/span>
\n\t      “Provided\t that the conditions of service\t ap-
\n\t      plicable immediately before the appointed day,
\n\t      to any such person shall not be varied to\t his
\n\t      disadvantage.   except   with   the   previous
\n\t      approval of the Central Government”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Notices\t terminating the services of the employees  employed
\nby   the   Provincial  Transport  Services   (operating\t  in
\nVidharbha)  were issued.  On 12th June 1961  an\t application
\nwas made under Art. 226 and Art. 227 of the Constitution  by
\ntwo former,, employees of the Provincial Transport  Services
\nand the Union of the workmen of that concern challenging the
\nvalidity  of  the order of reorganisation made on  the\t27th
\nMay.  1961 and the notices of termination of service  served
\non  the employees.  The following reliefs were\tprayed\tfor:\n<\/p>\n
(a) that the notices of termination be quashed; (b) that the
\namalgamation  of the Provincial Transport Services with\t the
\nBombay State Road Transport Corporation as directed under s.
\n47-A be not carried out, and (c) that “a writ of mandamus be
\nalso  issued to respondents 1 to 3 directing them  to  carry
\nout  the  obligations under s.25-F and other  provisions  of
\nretrenchment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and other
\nprovisions  of law before taking any action as\trequired  by
\nlaw and also by paragraph 9 of the order even assuming\tthat
\nthe amalgamation order is legal and proper.”
\nThree  contentions were raised in support of these  prayers.
\nIt  was\t first\turged that the order made on  the  27th\t May
\nviolated  the  provisions  of  s.47-A of  the  Act  and\t was
\ntherefore  bad\tin law, The second contention was  that\t the
\nproviso\t to  sub cl.3 of cl.9 of the order  contravenes\t the
\nprovisions  of\ts.77  of  the  Bombay  Reorganisation\tAct.
\nLastly,\t it  was  contended that the  action  taken  by\t the
\nGovernment  in abolishing the posts and issuing\t notices  of
\ntermination  of\t services of the employees  was\t bad-firstly
\nbecause\t it contravened s.25F (b) and (c) of the  Industrial
\nDisputes  Act  and  secondly,  because\tit  contravened\t the
\nprovisions of s.31 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes
\nSettlement Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court  rejected the\tfirst  contention  that\t the
\nGovernment  Order  violated  s.47-A of\tthe  Act.   It\talso
\nrejected  the petitioner’s contention that the action  taken
\nby the Government was bad because of contravention of  s.25F\n<\/p>\n
(b) and (c)    of  the\tIndustrial Disputes Act.   The\tHigh
\nCourt was however   of opinion that the proviso to sub-cl. 3
\nof cl. 9 of the order was bad in law, being in conflict with
\ns.77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, but it held that\t the
\nproviso was severable and its illegality did not affect\t the
\nworking\t of  the scheme.  The High Court also  accepted\t the
\npetitioner’s  contention  that\tthe  action  taken  by\t the
\nGovernment in issuing notices of termination of services  on
\nabolition  of  posts did not comply with the  provisions  of
\ns.31 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes
\n643<\/span>
\nSettlement Act and was accordingly invalid.  In the  result,
\nthe  High  Court  quashed  the\tGovernment  resolution\t for
\nabolition of posts and the notices of termination that\twere
\nissued in consequence thereof.\tIt also ordered the issue of
\na direction, directing the Maharashtra State Road  Transport
\nCorporation  “not  to take any action under the\t proviso  to
\nsub-paragraph  (3) of paragraph 9 of the Order\trelating  to
\nvarying\t the conditions of services to the  disadvantage  of
\nany  of\t the  employees\t who were  employees  of  the  first
\nrespondent  immediately before the appointed day, i.e.,\t 1st
\nJuly  1961.”  Against these orders of the  High\t Court,\t the
\nState  of Mahrashtra, the Maharashtra State  Road  Transport
\nCorporation and the Motor Transport Controller, Maharashtra,
\nhave appealed.\tAt the hearing of the appeal nobody appeared
\nbefore\tus on behalf of the petitioners in the\tHigh  Court.
\nThe correctness of the High Court’s decision that the  order
\nof the 27th May, 1961 did not violate s. 47-A of the Act was
\nnot challenged before us.  Nor was the High Court’s decision
\nthat  the  Government’s\t action\t in  abolishing\t posts\t and
\nterminating  services  of employees was not bad\t because  of
\ncontravention  of  s.  25F(b)  and  (c)\t of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act. questioned before us.  We have, therefore, not
\nexamined  the correctness or otherwise of these\t conclusions
\nand  shall  dispose  of the appeal on  the  basis  that\t the
\ndecision on these points are correct.\n<\/p>\n
The first contention urged in support of the appeal is\tthat
\nthe  High Court was wrong in thinking that in  ordering\t the
\nabolition of posts and terminating the services of employees
\nin those posts the Government had contravened the provisions
\nof  s.\t31 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial  Disputes\tSet-
\ntlement Act.  That section is in these words:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “31.  (1) If an employer intends to  effect  a
\n\t      change in any standing orders settled under s.
\n\t      30  or  in respect of  any  industrial  matter
\n\t      mentioned\t in  Schedule  11,  he\tshall\tgive
\n\t      fourteen days’ notice of such intention in the
\n\t      prescribed  form\tto  the\t representative\t  of
\n\t      employees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)  The\temployer shall send a  copy  of\t the
\n\t      notice  to  the  Labour  Commissioner,  Labour
\n\t      Officer  and  to such other person as  may  be
\n\t      prescribed and shall also affix a copy of\t the
\n\t      notice at a conspicuous place on the  premises
\n\t      where  the employees affected by the  proposed
\n\t      change  are employed and at such other  places
\n\t      as  may  be specially directed by\t the  Labour
\n\t      Commissioner in any case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (3)  On\t receipt   of\tsuch   notice\t the
\n\t      representative  of employees  concerned  shall
\n\t      negotiate with the employers”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
L\/P(1))ISCI-21(a)….\n<\/p>\n
644<\/span><\/p>\n
Schedule  II of this Act mentions a number of  matters,\t +he
\nfirst of which is “Reduction intended to be of permanent  or
\nsemi-permanent\tcharacter in the number of persons  employed
\nor  to be employed not due to force majeure”.  The  argument
\nthat  prevailed in the High Court was that abolition of\t all
\nposts amounted to permanent reduction within the meaning  of
\nthis  Item  in\tSchedule 11.  If that be  correct  it  would
\nnecessarily  follow that the Government had to\tobserve\t the
\nprocedure  prescribed  in s. 31.  Admittedly, that  was\t not
\ndone.\tThe  short  question,  therefore,  is  whether\t the
\nabolition  of  all  posts  of  an  establishment  amount  to
\nreduction of posts.  In our opinion, the word reduction\t can
\nonly  be  used when something is left after  reduction.\t  To
\nspeak  of abolition as a reduction of the whole\t thing\tdoes
\nnot  sound sensible or reasonable.  We ,ire unable to  agree
\nwith the High Court that the term reduction in the number of
\npersons\t employed or to be employed” as mentioned in Item  1
\nof  Schedule  11  covers abolition of  all  posts.   In\t our
\nopinion,  the Government Order in abolishing the  posts\t and
\nterminating the services of the employees did not amount  to
\na change within the meaning of s. 31 of the C. P. and  Berar
\nIndustrial  Disputes  Settlement Act.  The  Government\twas,
\ntherefore, not required to follow the procedure mentioned in
\ns. 31.\n<\/p>\n
This  brings  us to the question about the validity  of\t the
\nproviso\t to  sub-cl. 3 of cl. 9 of the\tOrder.\t As  already
\nindicated  the\tworkmen’s contention was  that\tthe  proviso
\ncontravened   the  provisions  of  s.  77  of\tthe   Bombay
\nReorganisation Act.  That section contained a provision that
\non transfer or reemployment of any workman in consequence of
\nreconstitution. reorganisation, amalgamation or\t dissolution
\nby any body corporate, cooperative society or any commercial
\nundertaking   or  industrial  undertaking  the\t terms\t and
\nconditions  of service applicable to the workman after\tsuch
\ntransfer or reemployment shall not be less favourable to the
\nworkman than those applicable to him immediately before\t the
\ntransfer of reemployment.  It was apparently apprehended  by
\nthe workmen that though sub-cl. 3 of cl. 9 of the Order\t did
\nstate  definitely  that the right of the  Maharashtra  State
\nRoad   Transport  Corporation  to  determine  or  vary\t the
\nconditions of service of any person who is continued in\t the
\nservice of the corporation was subject to the provisions  of
\ns.77  of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, advantage  might  be
\ntaken of the proviso to the sub-clause, which seems at least
\nat  first  sight to suggest that with the  approval  of\t the
\nCentral\t Government the conditions of service of a  work-man
\nmight  be  varied to his  disadvantage\tnotwithstanding\t the
\nprovisions  of s. 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation  Act.\t  We
\nare   informed,\t however,  that\t there\thas  been  no\tsuch
\nvariation.  The petition itself did not contain any specific
\nassertion that there had been any
\n645<\/span>
\nvariation  to the disadvantage of any workman.\tOnly an\t ap-
\nprehension  that  there\t might be a  change  in\t future\t was
\nexpressed.  In the counter-affidavit the  Government  stated
\nthat  the Order passed in the notices issued clearly gave  a
\nguarantee  that\t the  conditions  of  service  will  not  be
\nchanged.   If there was any reason to think that  there\t had
\nbeen any change in any conditions of service or that in\t the
\nimmediate future there was any likelihood of any such change
\nbeing made on the strength of the impugned proviso it  would
\nhave been necessary for us to examine the question about the
\nvalidity  of this proviso.  As however no change appears  to
\nhave  been  made and it does not appear that there  was\t any
\napprehension  of  any  change being made  in  the  immediate
\nfuture, we have thought it desirable to leave this  question
\nopen-particularly in view of the fact that the workmen\twere
\nnot  represented  before  us  in  this\tappeal.\t  We   have,
\ntherefore,  not heard full arguments on this  question\tfrom
\nthe learned Counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The  decision of the High Court that the proviso is  bad  is
\ntherefore,  set\t aside\tand the question is  left  open\t for
\ndecision  if and when it becomes really necessary to do\t so.
\nIn  view  of  our  decision that the  High  Court  erred  in
\nthinking  that\ts.  31 of the C.  P.  and  Berar  Industrial
\nDisputes  Settlement Act had to be applied the High  Court’s
\norder  quashing\t the abolition of posts and the\t notices  of
\ntermination cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of\t the
\nHigh  Court quashing the Government resolution of  the\t29th
\nMay,  1961  directing the abolition of posts  and  also\t its
\norder  quashing the notices of termination.  As we have\t set
\naside  the High Court’s decision as regards the validity  of
\nthe proviso to sub-cl. 3 of cl. 9 of the Order and left\t the
\nmatter\topen,  the  High Court’s direction  that  no  action
\nshould be taken under the proviso is also set aside.   There
\nwill be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
646<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Motor Transport Controller, … vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor … on 3 April, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1690, 1964 SCR (7) 639 Author: K D Gupta Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das PETITIONER: THE MOTOR TRANSPORT CONTROLLER, MAHARASHTRA STATE, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: PROVINCIAL RASHTRIYA MOTOR KAMGAR UNION,NAGPUR AND ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Motor Transport Controller, ... vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor ... on 3 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Motor Transport Controller, ... vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor ... on 3 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-27T14:12:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Motor Transport Controller, … vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor … on 3 April, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-27T14:12:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2563,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964\",\"name\":\"The Motor Transport Controller, ... vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor ... on 3 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-27T14:12:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Motor Transport Controller, … vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor … on 3 April, 1964\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Motor Transport Controller, ... vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor ... on 3 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Motor Transport Controller, ... vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor ... on 3 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-27T14:12:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Motor Transport Controller, … vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor … on 3 April, 1964","datePublished":"1964-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-27T14:12:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964"},"wordCount":2563,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964","name":"The Motor Transport Controller, ... vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor ... on 3 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-27T14:12:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-motor-transport-controller-vs-provincial-rashtriya-motor-on-3-april-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Motor Transport Controller, … vs Provincial Rashtriya Motor … on 3 April, 1964"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47731","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47731\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}