- (1.) - These appeals are directed agains.t the common order of a Division Bench of the High Court dated 31-7-1986 allowing the appeal preferred by the resp.ondents and setting aside the order of a single Judge quashing the order terminating the appellants' services, and offering them alternative employment at a lower scale. Since these appeals arise out of a common order, we are disposing these appeals by this order.
(2.) The State of Karnataka promulgated "Karnataka Contract Carriages Acquisition Ordinance" on January 30, 1976 providing for acquisition of contract carriage motor vehicles owned by private operators in the State of Karnataka. The Ordinance also made provisions for absorption of employees of the private operators whose vehicles were acquired under the Ordinance. The Ordinance was replaced by Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act 1976 on 12-3-1976 which also made provision for absorption of the employees of the erstwhile private operators of contract carriages. The Act was substantially in similar terms except for the difference that the ratio prescribed by the proviso to sub-clause (3) to Cl. 20 of the Ordinance, which laid down the categories of persons who could be absorbed in the service of the Corporation was substantially altered and a new ratio was inserted in the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of S. 19 of the Act, as a result of which the total strength of the employees of the erstwhile contract carriage operators entitled to absorption was reduced from 7.9 per vehicle to 4.45 per vehicle. Under the Ordinance conductors were entitled to be absorbed, but under the Act conductors were not included in the service of the Corporation, Likewise, there were some other variations in the scale provided for absorption of different class of employees. It is not necessary to enter into details, as admittedly, according to the scheme provided by the Act, the employees of the erstwhile private operators were screened for absorption in the service of the Corporation. After the screening the Corporation absorbed about 2645 employees in various categories but the Corporation issued notices terminating services of those employees who were not absorbed. Later in view of the judgment of this Court in M.S. Shivananda v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (1980) 1 SCR 684: (AIR 1980 SC 77), the Corporation reconsidered the matter as a result of which 391 employees who had earlier been absorbed were issued notices for termination of their services. The termination notice gave an option to the employees for accepting fresh 'employment in the initial stage of their respective categories. The affected employees approached the High Court of Karnataka by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the Corporation. A learned single Judge allowed the petitions and quashed the notice of termination, on the ground that it was not permissible to the Corporation to terminate the services after lapse of so many years and also on the ground of equitable estoppel. A number of writ appeals were filed by the Corporation before the Division Bench challenging the order of learned single Judge. The Division Bench allowed the appeals by the impugned order and set aside the order of the learned single Judge on the findings that the notices issued by the Corporation were valid in law and the employees were not entitled to absorption. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the subsequent events which have taken place during the pendency of this litigation, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to relief without entering into the legal question raised by the parties, which have been decided by the High Court.;