IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.2615 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SRI. K. S. MANJUNATHA SON OF SEEBIRANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF YELLAPURA ARKERE POST TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.
(BY SRI.G. HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.R. RADHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 101.
...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL THEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.6839 OF 2010 [L-K] DATED 08/03/2018 AS WELL AS THE AWARD PASSED BY THE HON'BLE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IN I.D.NO.214/06 DATED 27/11/2009 PRODUCED UNDER ANNEXURE-B, IN TURN ALLOW THE REFERENCE AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6839/2010 by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. Even though there is delay in filing the appeal, we have heard the appeal on merit .
3. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the award dated 27.11.2009 passed in I.D.No.214 of 2006 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru and for a direction to the respondent to re-fix the pay scale, seniority, promotion etc., of the petitioner from the date of completion of 180 days of service i.e., from 06.06.1992 and pay all consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment till the date of re-fixation under the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as badli conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 06.06.1992. thereafter, on 28.07.1997 he was brought on as trainee conductor. It is stated that the petitioner was brought on as a probationary conductor on 05.2.2000. The petitioner was confirmed in service from 11.02.2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that, his services ought to have been confirmed from 1992 and all benefits ought to have been granted. The dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal by Government Order date 17.02.2006. The Tribunal considering the claim of the petitioner rejected the reference. While rejecting the reference, the Tribunal held that the appointment of the petitioner in the year 1992 was for a short period and on temporary basis. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner would not be entitle to count the intermittent temporary service period to his regular appointment for any benefit. Hence, the petitioner is in appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Perused the appeal papers.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is wholly erroneous whereby the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate Ex.W.11 and Ex.W.12-attendance registrar extracts in its proper perspective. The petitioner has rendered continuous service as daily wager and he is entitle to count the service.
7. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge and the award of the Tribunal would not suffer from any illegality or erroneousness. The petitioner worked as badli conductor in the respondent-Corporation intermittently from 1992. The petitioner has not worked continuously or uninterruptedly as conductor till he was put on probation. Ex.M-7 dated 3.2.2007 confirmed the services of the petitioner with effect from 11.2.2002; Ex.W.2 would indicate that the petitioner was put on training for a period of 2 years from 05.2.2000. The petitioner produced Ex.W.11 and Ex.W.12 extracts of attendance register to claim service benefits from 1992. The learned Single Judge on perusal of the said document was of the view that it is not an authenticated document nor it bears any signature. The petitioner has not proved Ex.W.11 and Ex.W.12. Based on the materials placed on the record, the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner has not served the Corporation continuously for 240 days prior to his confirmation. His service prior to regular appointment was on temporary basis and that too was not continuous work. The pay fixation and seniority would be available on regular appointment and on confirmation. Ex.M-7 is an order of confirmation dated 02.03.2007 confirming the services of the petitioner from 11.02.2002. Therefore, the petitioner would not be entitle for any relief as sought for by him in the reference as well as before this Court. The KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules 1992 would indicate that on satisfactory completion of the period of probation and passing the prescribed tests within the period of probation, one would become eligible for confirmation. In the case of the petitioner also after training, he has been confirmed. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2018 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ CT:bms