- (1.) Thirty-two petitioners in this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution are Bus Conductors in the employment of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 1. They have alleged that the respondent-Corporation is a statutory organisation and is 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12. The normal practice prevalent in the Corporation is to initially appoint Conductors on daily wage basis and regularise them in due course, According to them, 19 daily wage Conductors as mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the petition were regularised and brought on the time-scale of pay with effect from the original date of their employment as daily wage Conductors, while though the petitioners have served for quite a long period they have not yet been regularised. They have alleged discrimination and claimed relief on the basis of Art. 14. They have asked for a direction to the Transport Corporation to bring them on the time-scale by regularisation from the date each of them came to be employed by the Corporation, as stated in Annexure 'B'.
(2.) The Corporation in its return to the rule has accepted the position that it is a statutory body created under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950. There is no challenge to the allegation of the petitioners that initial appointment is on daily wage basis and as and when regular vacancies arise the daily rated employees are brought on time-scale of pay and services are regularised. Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit specifically challenges the assertion of the petitioners that 19 similarly placed employees were confirmed on the date of initial employment on daily rated basis. The plea in paragraph 9 is as follows : "The information furnished in Annexure -A showing that 19 persons who were working in different divisions have been appointed on time-scale on the same date is absolutely wrong and misleading. The petitioners have sworn false affidavit without making any effort to verify the factual position. The date of confirmation in majority of the cases has been shown in Annexure-A as the date of their appointment just to prejudice this Court."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this -Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 122: (AIR 1987 SC 2342) and an order made on 14th of July, 1988 in Writ Petri. No. 8307-11 of 1983* which is still awaiting final disposal. The facts of the reported decision were very different. It would be sufficient to refer to para 2 of the judgment : * Since reported in (1988) 3 Serv LR516 (SC) "The principal complaint of the petitioners. is that even though many of them have been working for the last ten years as casual labourers, the wages paid to them are very low and far less than the salary and allowances paid to the regular employees of the Posts and Telegraphs Department belonging to each of the categories referred to above and secondly no scheme has been prepared by the Union of India to absorb them regularly in its service and consequently they have been denied the benefits, such as increments, pension, leave facilities etc. etc. which are enjoyed by those who have been recruited regularly. They allege that they are being exploited by the Union of India.;