- (1.) Leave granted in these special leave petitions being S. L. P. (C) Nos. 19982-19983 of 1997 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 22370-22371 of 1997. By consent of learned counsel of the contesting parties, there whose writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High court and which judgment came to be confirmed by the impugned judgment of the division bench. We shall refer to the appellant - Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the original Respondent no. 1 in the writ petition, as the 'corporation', the appellant State of Karnataka in other two appeals, being original Respondent No. 2 in the writ petition as the 'state', while the contesting Union, Respondent no. 1 in these appeals in writ petition as the 'union' for the sake of convenience in the latter part of this judgment. The question involved in these appeals is as to whether the order passed by the State on 10/09/1993 and the consequential order passed by the Corporation on 21/09/1993 were legal and valid. Both these orders came to be set aside by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the Union, and as noted above, the said order of the learned Single Judge came to be confirmed by the division bench in the impugned common judgment. The order dated 10/09/1993 of the State instructing the Corporation to withdraw the Pay Roll Check-off Facility given to the Union and the consequential order dated 21/09/1993 issued by the Corporation withdrawing this facility came to be challenged on various grounds in the writ petition which, as noted above, succeeded in the hierarchy of proceedings before the Karnataka High court. The short question, therefore,, which falls for our consideration is whether the impugned orders of the State and the consequential order issued by the Corporation could be sustained in law?
(2.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions centering round the aforesaid controversy between the parties, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts leading to these proceedings.
(3.) The Corporation is formed under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (for short the 'corporation Act') , for providing efficient, economical and properly co- ordinated transport services to the travelling public and the KSRTC has framed Service Regulations by deriving powers under Section 45 (2 (c) of the Corporation Act. At the relevant time the Union was the sole bargaining agent for the employees of the Corporation. On 11/12/1987 a referendum was held to choose the collective bargaining agent on behalf of the employees of the Corporation. The Union was elected as the recognised agent with 53% of the votes polled by way of official memorandum dated 24/12/1987. The Corporation thus granted recognition to the Union as sole bargaining agent. Consequent on choosing the Union as the collective bargaining agent, a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 18 (1 read with Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act') was entered into by the Corporation and the Union on 28/07/1988. Under this settlement it was agreed between the parties that the Corporation shalldeduct the subscription of the members of the Union sole bargaining agent and was chosen as such. The Corporation by its order dated 16/07/1992 accorded recognition to the Union as the sole bargaining agent as per the Memorandum. It not in dispute between the parties that as four years' period expired with effect from 16/07/1996 a fresh referendum had to be held for finding out as to whether the Union still commanded majority membership of workmen so as to be re-designated as a recognised Union. But the said referendum has still not been held because of writ petitions pending in the High court and the Stay granted therein, with which we are not concerned in the present proceedings.;