# S. WVINDARAJU v. K.S.R.T.C. & ANR

- **Citation:** [1986] 2 S.C.R. 509
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-04-15
- **Bench:** N. Singh, CHINNAf'l'A REDDY
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-wvindaraju-v-k-s-r-t-c-anr-9399
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

~-~
Karnataka
Road
Transport
Corporation
(Cadre
&
Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 - Regulation 10(5) - State Road
Transport
Corporation -
Conductor -
Services
terminated
without enquiry - Legality of - Whether principles of natural
A
B
justice violated -
Opportunity of e;cplanation - Entitlement
c
~and necessity of.
» Y
Regulation 10(5) of the Regulations (Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations 1982
provides that during temporary/Badli employment a candidate if
terminated/re11K1ved from service as unsuitable for the post, he
0
will forfeit his chance for the appointment in terms of his
selection.
The appellant was selected for appointment as Conductor
I'- in the Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation -
a
statutory authority constituted under the Road Transport
E
Corporation Act 1950. His name was placed on the select list
prepared by the Selection Colllllittee constituted under the
Karnataka
State
Road
Transport
Corporation
(Cadre
and
"f Recruitment) Regulation 1982,
He was not given a regular
appointment but, he was appointed to work aa Conductor in
-¥ temporary vacancy. lie continued to work for a period of llKlre
F
'
than 240 days. While he was working as Conductor, his services
were terminated under Regulation 10(5) of the Regulations on
the ground of his being found unsuitable for the post without
giving any opportunity of explanation. The termination order
further stated that the appellant would forfeit his chance for
appointment in terms of selection and his name shall stand
G
deleted from the select list.
The appellant challenged the validity of teI'llination
order before the High Court in a Writ Petition. The High Court
di81d.aeed
the Writ Petition holding that the order of
tend.nation was made in terms under which employment waa given
H
A
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 s.c.R.
to him and it did not amount to retrenchment in view of s. ,_,.
2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD
1. The appellant was not afforded any opportunity
B
of explanation before. the issue of the impugned order.
c
D
E
F
G
H
Consequently, the order is rendered null and void being
inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. Therefore~-
the order of the High Court as also the order of termination
are set aside and the appellant shall be treated in service
and be paid his back wages and other benefits. (514 C-D]
2. The Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and .J
Recruitment) Regulations 1982 which regulate the conditions of
service of its employees, are statutory in nature having been lf \.
framed under s. 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation
Act. Once a candidate is selected and his name is included in
the select list in accordance with the Regulations, he gets a
right to be considered for appointment as and when vacancy
arises. On the removal of his name from Select List, serious
consequences entail as he forfeits his right to employment in
future. In such a situation even though the Regulations do not
stipulate for affording any opportunity to the employee, the.li
principle of natural justice would be attracted and the
employee would be entitled to an opportunity of explanation,
though no elaborate inquiry would be necessary. Giving an
opportunity of explanation would meet
the bare minimal
requirement of natural justice. Before the services of an
employee are terminated, resulting into forfeiture of his 'Y
right to be
considered for employment,
opportunity of
explanation 1111St
be afforded to the employee concerned.
-~
[513 D-E; 513H; 514 A-C]
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
1339(NL) of 1986.
Ci vi 1 Appeal
No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6,85 in the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No, 9171 of 1985,
R.K. Garg,
V. Laxminarayana and D.K. Garg for the
Appellant.
G.B. Pai, N.D.B. Raju, Miss Deepa and Vineet Kumar for
the Respondent.
•!!
S, GOVINDARAJU v. K.S.R.T.C.
[SINGH, J,]
511

## Text

509
S. WVINDARAJU
v.
K.S.R.T.C. & ANR.
APRIL 15, 1986
[K,N. SINGH AND 0, CHINNAf'l'A REDDY, JJ.]
~-~
Karnataka
Road
Transport
Corporation
(Cadre
&
Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 - Regulation 10(5) - State Road
Transport
Corporation -
Conductor -
Services
terminated
without enquiry - Legality of - Whether principles of natural
A
B
justice violated -
Opportunity of e;cplanation - Entitlement
c
~and necessity of.
» Y
Regulation 10(5) of the Regulations (Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations 1982
provides that during temporary/Badli employment a candidate if
terminated/re11K1ved from service as unsuitable for the post, he
0
will forfeit his chance for the appointment in terms of his
selection.
The appellant was selected for appointment as Conductor
I'- in the Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation -
a
statutory authority constituted under the Road Transport
E
Corporation Act 1950. His name was placed on the select list
prepared by the Selection Colllllittee constituted under the
Karnataka
State
Road
Transport
Corporation
(Cadre
and
"f Recruitment) Regulation 1982,
He was not given a regular
appointment but, he was appointed to work aa Conductor in
-¥ temporary vacancy. lie continued to work for a period of llKlre
F
'
than 240 days. While he was working as Conductor, his services
were terminated under Regulation 10(5) of the Regulations on
the ground of his being found unsuitable for the post without
giving any opportunity of explanation. The termination order
further stated that the appellant would forfeit his chance for
appointment in terms of selection and his name shall stand
G
deleted from the select list.
The appellant challenged the validity of teI'llination
order before the High Court in a Writ Petition. The High Court
di81d.aeed
the Writ Petition holding that the order of
tend.nation was made in terms under which employment waa given
H
A
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 s.c.R.
to him and it did not amount to retrenchment in view of s. ,_,.
2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD
1. The appellant was not afforded any opportunity
B
of explanation before. the issue of the impugned order.
c
D
E
F
G
H
Consequently, the order is rendered null and void being
inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. Therefore~-
the order of the High Court as also the order of termination
are set aside and the appellant shall be treated in service
and be paid his back wages and other benefits. (514 C-D]
2. The Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and .J
Recruitment) Regulations 1982 which regulate the conditions of
service of its employees, are statutory in nature having been lf \.
framed under s. 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation
Act. Once a candidate is selected and his name is included in
the select list in accordance with the Regulations, he gets a
right to be considered for appointment as and when vacancy
arises. On the removal of his name from Select List, serious
consequences entail as he forfeits his right to employment in
future. In such a situation even though the Regulations do not
stipulate for affording any opportunity to the employee, the.li
principle of natural justice would be attracted and the
employee would be entitled to an opportunity of explanation,
though no elaborate inquiry would be necessary. Giving an
opportunity of explanation would meet
the bare minimal
requirement of natural justice. Before the services of an
employee are terminated, resulting into forfeiture of his 'Y
right to be
considered for employment,
opportunity of
explanation 1111St
be afforded to the employee concerned.
-~
[513 D-E; 513H; 514 A-C]
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
1339(NL) of 1986.
Ci vi 1 Appeal
No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6,85 in the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No, 9171 of 1985,
R.K. Garg,
V. Laxminarayana and D.K. Garg for the
Appellant.
G.B. Pai, N.D.B. Raju, Miss Deepa and Vineet Kumar for
the Respondent.
•!!
S, GOVINDARAJU v. K.S.R.T.C.
[SINGH, J,]
511
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
SINGH, J. Special Leave to appeal is granted.
This appeal is directed against the order of the High
Court of Karnataka dismissing the respondents' writ petition
under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of
B
termination of service on the ground that it was violative of
Sec. 25F cf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
~ .._
Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that
the appellant was selected for appointment as Conductor in the
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation constituted under
the Transport Act, 1950, his name was placed on the select
1' list prepared by the Selection Collllllittee constituted under the
Karnataka
State
Road
Transport
Corporation
(Cadre
and
Y Recruitment) Regulation 1982. He was not given a regular
appointment but he was appointed to work as conductor in
temporary vacancy. He continued to work for a period of
11K>re
than 240 days. While he was working as conductor his services
were terminated by the Order dt, 2-4/5 of 1985 on the ground
of his being found unsuitable for the post, The termination
order further directed that the appellant would forfeit his
chance for appointment in terms of selection and his name
t. shall stand deleted from the select list. The appellant
challenged the validity of termination order before the High
Court of Karnataka by means of a petition under Art. 226 of
the Constitutien on the ground that the order of termination
was void and illegal for the non-compliance of Sec. 25F of the
~ Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Karnataka rejected the petition holding that the
order of termination was made in terms under which employment
.. ..,
was given to him and it did not a11K>unt to retrenchment in view
of Sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that
no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous
service for not less than one year under an employer shall be
retrenched
by
that
employer
until he
has
been
paid
retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days
average pay for completing a year of service or any part
thereof in excess of 6 months. Section 25F was designed by the
Parliament to safeguard the interest of employees,
The
statutory requirement of payment of compensation is a condic
D
E
F
G
H
A
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fl986J 2 s.c.R.
tion precedent for the retrenchment of a workman and any "-'"
termination without payment would make the retrenchment order
invalid and inoperative, as has been held by this Court in
State Bank of India v. Sbri. N. Sondra Money, A.I.R. 1976 s.c.
1111; Santosh Gupta v. State Banlt of Patiala, A.I.R. 1980 s.c.
1219; Mohan Lal v. Management B,E., A.I.R, 1981 S.C. 1253 and
B
Management LS.R.T.C. v. Baraiah, A.I.R. 1983 S.C, 1320,
Section 2(oo) defines
retrenchment which means
the~~
termination by the employer of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of
disciplinary action, but does not include (a) voluntary
C
retirement of workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on
reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of an _,f
employment between the employer and the workman concerned
cc.ntains a stipulation in that behalf or (c) termination of 'f
the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill
health. By the amending Act 49 of 1984 a new clause (bb) was
D
added to Sec. 2(00). The amended provision runs as under :
2(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the
employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever,
otherwise
than
as
a
punishment
inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does ..
E
not include -
F
G
(a) x
x
x
x
.x
x
x
(b) x
x
x
x
x
x
x
"(bb) termination of the service of the workman as
a result of the non-renewal of the contract of '(
employment between the employer and the workman
concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf
contained therein; or".
The High Court held that since the appellant's contract
for employment contained a stipulation that his services could
be terminated at any time, the termination did not amount to )'--
retrenchment in view of the newly added exception to Sec.
2(00). The validity of Section 2(oo)(bb) was not challenged
H
before us. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that if
-
S. GOVINDARAJU v. K.S.R,T.C,
[SINGH, J,]
513
....;, the view of the High Court is accepted it would enable
unscrupulous emloyers to provide a stipulation in the contract
of service for terminating the employment of the employees to
escape the rigorous of Sec. 25F of the Act. This would further
confer arbitrary powers on the employers which would be
destructive of the protection granted bY the Act
to the
employees. We do not consider it necessary to express any
opinion on this question as in our opinion the appellant is
~·.,.entitled to succeed on another short question Le. the
termination order being violative of principles of natural
justice.
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is a
).. statutory authority constituted under the Road Transport
Corporation Act, 1950, The Corporation has framed Regulations
..,.(Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Cadre & Recruitment
Regulations) 1982 regulating the conditions of service of its
employees. These regulations are statutory in nature having
been framed under sec.
45(2)(c) of the Road
Transport
Corporation Act. Admittedly the appellant was selected by the
Selection
Committee
constituted
under
the
aforesaid
Regulations and his name was included in the select list
prepared for the purpose of appointment as Conductor as and
.. when vacancy would arise. His name was also included in the
Badli list of workers and in pursuance thereof he was given
employement. There is no dispute that the appellant was
allowed to be in continuous service for a period of more than
one year and while he was in continuous service the impugned
~ order of termination was issued in accordance with Regulation
10(5). The relevant provision of Regulation 10(5) provides
that
during
temporary /Badli
appointment
a
candidate if
't- terminated/removed from service as unsuitable for the post he
will forfeit his chance for the appointment in terus of his
selection. There is no dispute that the appellant's services
were terminated on the ground of his being found unsuitable
for the appointment and as a result of which his name was
deleted from the select list, and he forfeited his chance for
appointment. Once a candidate is selected and his name is
included in the select list for appointment in accordance with
r"f the Regulations he gets a right to be
considered for
appointment as and when vacancy arises. On the removal of his
name from the select list serious consequence entail as he
forfeits his right to employment in future. In such a
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1986] 2 S.C.R.
situation even though the Regulations do not stipulate for )....-
affording any opportuniry to the employee, the principles of
natural justice would be attracted and the employee would be
entitled to an opportunity of explanation, though no elaborate
enquiry
would
be
necessary.
Giving
an
opportunity
of
explanation would
meet
the bare minimal
requirement of
B
natural justice. Before the services of an employee are
terminated, resulting into forfeiture of his right to be
considered for employement, opportunity of explanation ID.1st be+~
afforded to the employee concerned. The appellant was not
afforded any opportunity of explanation before the issue of
the impugned order consequently the order is rendered null and
~
c
void
being inconsistent with the principles of natural
justice. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the -{
order of the High Court and also the order of termination and
·
direct that the appellant shall be treated in service and be 'Y
4
paid his back wages and other benefits. The appeal is allowed
with costs.
D
M.L.A.
Appeal allowed.