Rama Jois, J.:—
The petitioner an ex-employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order by which his services were terminated.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: By order dated 6-1-1983 the petitioner was taken as a badli conductor in the services of the Corporation. By the impugned order dated 3-12-1984 Annexure-A his services were terminated on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice and 15 days wages as retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act for short). The petitioner questions the validity of the said order on following grounds:
Mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 25-F namely assigning reasons for retrenchment and giving an intimation to the State Government have not been complied with.
In my opinion the contention is untenable for the order of termination does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of that expression as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in view of the introduction of sub-Clause (bb) into the said clause.
3. In view of sub-clause (bb) which was introduced into the Act by Act 49/84 which came into force from 19th August 1984, the termination of services of a workman in terms of the stipulation contained in the order of appointment does not amount to retrenchment. The impugned order reads:
“(1) The services of Sri Shankaraiah, was utilised as a Badli Conductor under clear terms and conditions stipulated in the order cited at item 2 above as per which the undersigned being the Competent Authority is empowered to discontinue from utilisation of his services as Badli conductor when his work is found not satisfactory or he is found unsuitable for the post of Badli Conductor.
(2) During the period of utilisation as Badli Conductor the services of Sri Shankaraiah, are found to be unsatisfactory and therefore he is not suitable for the post for which he is utilised as Badli.
(3) In the circumstances, I hereby order that the name of Sri Shankaraiah, be REMOVED from the list of Badli Conductors maintained at Depot II, Mysore Divn., and thus his services be discontinued with immediate effect.
(4) Further, I order that his Name is removed from the Select list of Conductors referred to at item I above in pursuance of Regulation 10(5) of the KSRTC Cadre and Recruitment Regulations 1982 and his chance for further appointment as Conductor in terms of the said Select list is hereby forfeited.
(5) Sri Shankaraiah, has put in continuous service of One year in terms of the Provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and therefore a cheque for Rs. 955-90 P. is enclosed herewith towards wages in lieu of Notice period and compensation payable as per Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act.”
4. As stated in the first paragraph the petitioner was only a badli conductor and therefore his services could be dispensed with at anytime if the appointing authority considered that he was not suitable for the post. In the second paragraph of the impugned order, the authority has expressly stated that it found the petitioner unsuitable for the post and therefore his services were being terminated. Therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner being in terms of the order of appointment, it does not amount to retrenchment at all.
5. Even so, the Divisional Controller has proceeded to give a cheque for Rs. 955-90 towards the wages in lieu of notice and compensation payable under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act though no such amount was payable.
6. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the name of the petitioner was included in the list of the selected candidates and therefore he could not be regarded as badli conductor. It may be, his name had been included in the list of selected candidates. But on the basis of the said inclusion he had not secured a regular appointment. Unless the petitioner had secured an appointment on the basis of the select list, he could not claim to be in regular employment. As far as the badli appointments are concerned, they are governed by Rule 16 of the K.S.R.T.C Rules. It reads:
Procedure for appointment of Badlis
1. A ‘BADLI’ worker is one who is employed on a day-to-day basis in any vacancy caused by the absence of any employee and who is paid for the number of days he works as such, either daily or once in a month.
2. A list of Badli workers shall be maintained in a Depot or Workshops. The appointment of a Badli shall be made from among those in the list of Badli workers who are present at the Depot/Workshops, preference being given to the person who arrives first at the place of duty. If for any reason a Badli worker is not found suitable for the post, his name may be removed from the list of Badli workers.
3. A Badli worker would be eligible for such day today appointment as long as his name figures in the list of Badli workers.
7. From the first paragraph of the impugned order, it is clear that as the petitioner had not yet been appointed on the basis of the select list his services were utilised as a badli Conductor. Therefore, the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated if his work was found unsatisfactory and he was found unsuitable for the post. That is what has been done by the impugned order.
For these reasons, I find no ground to entertain the petition.
The petition is rejected.