SEN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal, by special leave, directed against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 26/07/1978 and the connected petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, raise a common question. It would, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE short question involved in these cases is, whether the employees of the erstwhile contract carriage operators in the State of Karnataka acquired a vested right of absorption in service with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation under sub-cl. (3) to Cl. 20 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976. It will be convenient to refer in the first place to the legislative changes. On 30/01/1976 the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 was promulgated by the Governor of Karnataka under cl. (1) of Art. 213 of the Constitution. The said Ordinance was promulgated with the object of acquiring contract carriages operating in the State and for certain matters connected therewith. On the same day, i.e., on 30/01/1976 the State Government issued a notification under Cl. 4 (1) of the Ordinance vesting every contract carriage owned or operated by such contract carriage operator, along with permit, in the State Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. On the same day, the State Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. On the same day, the State Government made an order under sub-cl. (1) to Cl. 20 of the Ordinance transferring all the contract carriages that vested in the State Government under the notification issued under sub-cl. (1) to Cl. 4 of the Ordinance, to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). Sub-cl. (3) to Cl. 20 of the Ordinance provided for absorption of certain categories of employees of contract carriage operators in the service of the Corporation. It also provided the ratio for absorption for different categories of employees that were entitled to be absorbed in the service of the Corporation. The Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, which was published in the gazette on 12/03/1976. The Ordinance was repealed by the Act, and it re-enacted the provisions of the repealed Ordinance, with a saving clause in sub-sec. (2) of S. 31, for preservation of anything done or action taken. The Act was substantially in similar terms except for the difference that the ratio prescribed by proviso to sub-cl. (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. Otherwise, sub-sec. (3) of S.19 of the Act and sub-cl. (3) to Cl. 20 of the Ordinance were identical in every respect. Under proviso to sub-cl. (3) to Cl. 20, the total strength of the employees of the erstwhile contract carriage operators allowable for absorption was 7.9 per vehicle, while under proviso to sub-sec. (3) of S. 19 of the Act the same works out to 4.45 per vehicle. Further, while under the Ordinance conductors were entitled to be absorbed, the ratio provided under the Act shows that conductors are not included in the categories of persons who can be absorbed in the service of the Corporation.
(3.) IT appears that although as many as 785 contract carriages were notified for acquisition, only 601 vehicles were actually acquired. The change in the ratio of absorption from 7.9 per vehicle under sub-cl. (3) to Cl. 20 of the Ordinance to 4.45 per vehicle under sub-section (3) of S.19 of the Act adversely affected a large number of employees of the erstwhile contract carriage operators. A large number of writ petition were, therefore, filed in the High Court challenging the vires of the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of S. 19 of the Act on various grounds, but by the judgment under appeal the High Court has repelled all the contentions. Thereafter, the remaining writ petitions were all withdrawn. The appeal is against the judgment of the High Court and the employees have also directly approached the Court under Art. 32.;