THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. THE WORKMEN OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 28th day of August 2013 PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO

Writ Appeal Nos. 1459 of 2007 & 2136 of 2011 (GM-RES) c/w Writ Appeal No.1479 of 2007 (GM-RES); Writ Appeal Nos. 1490 of 2007 & 2137 of 2011 (GM-RES); Writ Appeal Nos.1491 of 2007 & 2138 of 2011(GM-RES); & Writ Appeal No.1634 of 2007 (GM-RES)

In Writ Appeal Nos. 1459 of 2007 & 2136 of 2011 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director Central Offices K.H. Road Bangalore – 560 027 Now represented by its Deputy Chief Law Officer

…Appellant

(By Sri S. Vijayashankar, Senior Counsel for Smt. H.R. Renuka & M/s. Jayaram & Jayaram Advocates)

AND:

State Road Transport Corporation

Repr. By K.S.R.T.C. Staff &

Workers Federation

No.25, 1st Floor 4th Floor

Sampige Road

Malleshwaram

Bangalore – 560 003

Secretary

Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Fund

K.S.R.T.C.

Central Stores Complex

Shanthi Nagar

Bangalore – 560 027

Repr. By its Secretary to

Government of Karnataka

Department of Home and Transport

Vidhana Soudha

Bangalore – 560 001

Ex. Minister for Transport

Government of Karnataka

Vidhana Soudha

Bangalore – 560 001

Repr. By its Secretary to the

Ministry of Surface Transport

501, Transport Bhavan R. No.3812

Safdarjang Road

New Delhi

Corporation

K.H. Road

Shanthinagar

Bangalore – 560 027

Repr. By its Managing Director

Transport Corporation

Gokul Road, Hubli

Repr. By its Managing Director

Transport Corporation

(N.E.K.R.T.C.), Gulbarga

By its Managing Director

…Respondents

(By Sri K. Kasturi, Senior Counsel & Sri M.C. Narasimhan, Senior Counsel for R1; Sri S. Kalyan Basavaraj, ASG for R2, 4, 5; Smt. S. Susheela, AGA for R3; Sri Shivashankar Reddy M.G., Advocate for R5; Sri L. Govindaraj, Advocate for R6 to 8)

These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.22194 of 1997 dated 02-07-2007.

In Writ Appeal No.1479 of 2007 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation K.H. Road, Shanthinagar Bangalore – 560 027 By its Managing Director

Now represented by its Chief Law Office

…Appellant

(By Sri L. Govindaraj, Advocate)

AND:

State Road Transport Corporation

Rep. by K.S.R.T.C. Staff &

Workers Federation

No.25, 1st Floor 4th Floor

Sampige Road

Malleshwaram

Bangalore – 560 003

Secretary

Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Fund

K.S.R.T.C.

Central Stores Complex

Shanthi Nagar

Bangalore – 560 027

.. Respondents

(By Sri K. Kasturi, Senior Counsel & Sri M.C. Narasimhan, Senior Counsel)

This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No. 22194 of 1997, dated 02-07-2007.

In Writ Appeal Nos. 1490 of 2007 & 2137 of 2011 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Gokul Road

Hubli – 580 020 By its Managing Director Now represented by its Chief Law Office

…Appellant

(By Sri L. Govindaraj, Advocate)

AND:

State Road Transport Corporation

Rep. by K.S.R.T.C. Staff &

Workers Federation

No.25, 1st Floor 4th Floor

Sampige Road

Malleshwaram

Bangalore – 560 003

Secretary

Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Fund

K.S.R.T.C.

Central Stores Complex

Shanthi Nagar

Bangalore – 560 027

.. Respondents

(By Sri K. Kasturi, Senior Counsel & Sri M.C. Narasimhan, Senior Counsel for R1; Sri S. Kalyan Basavaraj, ASG for R2)

These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No. 22194 of 1997, dated 02-07-2007.

In Writ Appeal Nos.1491 of 2007 & 2138 of 2011 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Central Offices “Sarige Sadan” Gulbarga – 585 101 By its Managing Director Now represented by its Chief Law Office

…Appellant

(By Sri L. Govindaraj, Advocate)

AND:

State Road Transport Corporation

Rep. by K.S.R.T.C. Staff &

Workers Federation

No.25, 1st Floor 4th Floor

Sampige Road

Malleshwaram

Bangalore – 560 003

Secretary

Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Fund

K.S.R.T.C.

Central Stores Complex

Shanthi Nagar

Bangalore – 560 027

...Respondents

(By Sri K. Kasturi, Senior Counsel & Sri M.C. Narasimhan, Senior Counsel for R1; Sri S. Kalyan Basavaraj, ASG for R2)

These Writ Appeals are d under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No. 22194 of 1997, dated 02-07-2007.

In Writ Appeal No.1634 of 2007 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:

The State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary to Government of Karnataka Department of Home and Transport Vidhana Soudha Bangalore – 560 001

…Appellant

(By Smt. S. Susheela, AGA)

AND:

State Road Transport Corporation

Repr. By K.S.R.T.C. Staff &

Workers Federation

No.25, 1st Floor 4th Floor

Sampige Road

Malleshwaram

Bangalore – 560 003

Secretary

Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Fund

K.S.R.T.C.

Central Stores Complex

Shanthi Nagar

Bangalore – 560 027

Ex. Minister for Transport

Government of Karnataka

Vidhana Soudha

Bangalore – 560 001

Rep. by its Secretary to the

Ministry of Surface Transport

501, Transport Bhavan R. No.3812

Safdarjang Road

New Delhi

Corporation

K.H. Road

Shanthinagar

Bangalore – 560 027

Repr. By its Managing Director

Transport Corporation

Gokul Road, Hubli

Repr. By its Managing Director

Transport Corporation

(N.E.K.R.T.C.) Gulbarga

By its Managing Director

…Respondents

(By Sri K. Kasturi, Senior Counsel & Sri M.C. Narasimhan, Senior Counsel for C/R; Sri Manjunath V Advocte for R1 to 3; Smt. Gowhar Unnisa, CGSC for R5; Sri L. Govindaraj, Advocate for R6; R4 deleted; R7 and 8 Service of notice held sufficient)

This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.22194 of 1997 dated 02-07-2007.

These Writ Appeals coming on for hearing this day, N. KUMAR J., delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

These five appeals are preferred against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the impugned orders and notifications by which the State had established three Road Transport Corporations.

BACKGROUND 2.

For the purpose of clarity, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petition.

The first petitioner-Workmen of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation represented by KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation is a recognized Federation of affiliated Trade Unions in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and has been so recognised since 1987 after a ballot. The second petitioner is an employee in 2nd Depot, B.T.S. He has also been working as Secretary of Death Cum Relief Benefit Fund (D.R.B.F.) set up by the Corporation.

The Passenger Road Transport Services in the public sector was first started in the then State of Mysore on 12.09.1948 as a Government Department with a modest fleet of 120 buses. After the State’s Reorganization and the near doubling of the territory of the State and merging of the services operated in the territories of Andhra and Maharashtra, the activities and the fleet became largely enlarged. To cope up with this growth, the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation was set up on 01.08.1961 under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (for short

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The various transport services which were operating in different parts of Karnataka, were brought under one roof. They are in Old Mysore, MGRTD (Mysore Govt. Road Transport Department) which was a departmental undertaking run by the Government of Mysore. Similar was the position in respect of Hyderabad Karnataka Area. From the North Karnataka it covered Bombay Transport Service (BTS). The transport services in Bangalore city was originally run by Bangalore Transport Company (BTC) a private organization. The same was nationalized in the year 1956 and became BTS. However it was administered as MGRTD. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation was later renamed when the State’s name underwent a change on 01.11.1973 as Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the KSRTC). The KSRTC was one of the biggest RTCs and it was the third largest Road Transport Corporation in the country. Bus routes on 71% of the total area of the State were nationalized and buses in these routes

are operated only by KSRTC which is a public sector undertaking owned by the State. On the day the Writ Petition was filed, 62,000 employees were working in the KSRTC, 10,500 buses were on the road, about 64 lakh passengers were travelling in a day. The kilometer operated per day was of the order of 26.92 lakhs carrying about 60.65 lakhs of passengers. The number of drivers were about 21,000 and conductors being 20,000.

With the unprecedented growth of KSRTC and its monolithic structure, a need was felt to streamline and improve the efficiency to serve the ever growing commuter needs. To examine these problems and to devise means of achieving efficiency of operations, the State Government decided to constitute a committee of experts to make an in- depth study of various problems and to report whether creation of four or five subsidiary corporations would improve the working of the Corporation. By an order dated 21.12.1987 an Expert Committee consisting of the Secretary

to Government, Food and Transport Department as Chairman; the Secretary to Government-II, Finance Department; the Executive Director, National Transportation Planning and Research Centre, Trivandrum, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, KSRTC and Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore as Members and the Deputy Secretary to Government, Food and Transport Department as Secretary for making a report. The said Committee submitted its report on 11.07.1988.

One of the recommendations was that KSRTC had grown into a mammoth organization and it was necessary to examine the question of dividing the Corporation into four or five smaller viable bodies.

Thereafter by order dated 18.07.1991, the Government constituted an expert technical committee consisting of Vice Chairman and Managing Director, KSRTC as the Chairman, the Director, Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune, the Executive Director, National

Transportation Planning and Research Centre, Trivandrum, the Advisor, ASRTU, Khelgon, Sriharikota, New Delhi, as members and the Chief Traffic Manager, KSRTC as Secretary for the purpose of finding out the reasons for the ineffective functioning of KSRTC at various levels of administration and inadequate transport facilities to the travelling public including the backward and rural areas. The said Committee by its report dated 24.09.1992 recommended that the KSRTC be liquidated and in its place eight Corporations be constituted to achieve the objects for which the KSRTC was established.

By yet another Government Order dated 18.02.1993 the Government constituted a Legislature Committee headed by Sri. P.G.R. Sindhia, Member, Legislative Assembly, who was then the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and seventeen other Members of the Legislative Assembly and Council to examine the fare structure of KSRTC, its working and administrative efficiency. The

Committee by its report dated 13.05.1994 recommended structural reorganization, the sum and substance of which is that KSRTC be bifurcated by making BTS as its subsidiary Corporation and establish two more subsidiary Corporations, one at Hubli and the other at Gulbarga.

The conclusion arrived at by these Committees is inescapable and they all consistently and uniformly recommended: (a) the setting up of several Corporations in place of a single monolithic KSRTC;

(b) the bifurcation of the Bangalore City Transport from KSRTC and constituting it as a separate Corporation or Company.

It is in this background, the Government has issued three notifications constituting three Corporations, under Section 3 of the Act, who are impleaded to this writ petition as, fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents.

GRIEVANCE OF THE PETITIONERS 9.

The petitioners challenging the establishment of these three Corporations contend that, one of the features subjected to criticism from a section of the ruling elite, particularly after the liberalization doctrine adopted by the Government of India in 1994 relates to the loss suffered by KSRTC. The effect of accounting loss have been used by a section of the ruling group to mount up campaign for privatization. The losses are solely due to the policies pursued by the State Government. The first reason for the loss is the policy of concession shown to different groups of commuters such as students etc. If the expenditure incurred by the KSRTC had been reimbursed by the State Government as suggested by various Committees, hardly the loss could have reduced. Secondly, the KSRTC unlike a private operator is required to run a large number of uneconomic routes and this is as per pressure policies and direction of the Government. This may almost be of the order of 30 to 35%. Added to these difficulties, is the tax

structure. The KSRTC is required to pay high rate of tax when compared with the neighbouring states. It pays rate of tax higher than what is charged to the private operators. The Committee of Legislature in the report have clearly indicated the enoromous disadvantages under which the KSRTC has been functioning. If there are any losses it is solely due to the policies of the Government. It cannot be solved by the increasing number of Corporations. In fact the increase in the number of Corporations will worsen the above noted financial position. The State Government has been allowing parallel and clandestine operations on the nationalised routes by private operators, Maxicabs etc. The loss on this account is more than 150 crores. The report submitted by the Legislatures Committee as pointed out that such illegal operations of the Maxicabs etc. to the detriment of KSRTC is due to the connivance of the Police, Motor Vehicle Dept. and effectively protected by the ruling elite at the top. The Committee also sets out the advantages in having larger single organisations. They have also pointed

out the demerits as observed by the Kodandaramaiah Committee. Unfortunately the legislature Committee made recommendations for more than one Corporation. Before venturing of this adventure of increasing subsidiary Corporations the Government should have seen to it that various other measures suggested by various Committees of the Legislature in regard to revamping of the administration, decentralization, plugging loop holes, preventing parallel private operators taking into confidence the workers and their organizations, should have been implemented. If after those deficiencies were corrected then only could have considered the question of increasing subsidiary corporations and that too after there was really such need felt by the corporation. Deliberately, the cart has been put before the horse. In the writ petition, the petitioners have set out various actions on the part of the management which effected the interest of the workers in general and their federation. One such legal aspect which is put forth is that, the scheme as proposed for forming 4 Corporations has not

originated from the 2nd respondent KSRTC. To the knowledge of the petitioners, there is no resolution of the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent KSRTC either stating that they cannot continue as a single State-wide Corporation or suggesting that there is an urgent and felt need for having 3 or 4 Corporations. It is an arbitrary decision of the State Government. It is not in concurrence with Section 17-A of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950.

10.

Therefore, the petitioners sought for quashing of the Government Order dated 22.02.1997 and 07.08.1997 produced as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively. They also sought for quashing the notifications at Annexures ‘B1’, ‘B2’ and ‘B3’. They wanted a declaration that Section 17A of the Act is inoperative and invalid and any action thereunder would also be invalid. Then in the alternative, they also sought a declaration that the deputation of all the workmen to BMTC/NWKRTC/NEKRTC from KSRTC may be held to be

invalid and inoperative from the commencement of the impugned Government Orders and to declare that all the employees/workmen on the rolls of BTS and other respective divisions of the erstwhile KSRTC are to be treated as full fledged workmen of the respective Corporations (BMTC, NWKRTC and NEKRTC) with a permanent status and with continuity of service and without any interpretation in the undertaking concern etc.

DEFENCE 11.

After service of notice, the State Government has filed its statement of objections. They contended that the writ petition is filed under an erroneous presumption that the State has established subsidiary Corporations under Section 17A of the Act. In fact four independent Corporations have been established by the State by exercising their power under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the objections are misconceived and liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

12.

They contend that KSRTC was established on 01.08.1961 under the provisions of the Act with a fleet of 1792 vehicles. Prior thereto, this organization was one of the departments of the State Government. The fleet strength has been increasing from time to time to cater to the needs of the travelling public throughout the State of Karnataka. Despite the steady increase of fleet strength, the Corporation was not able to neutralize its losses due to various factors. The issue relating to financial losses suffered by the Corporation and the imperative need to improve operational efficiency have engaged the attention of the Government. The Government therefore felt there was immediate need to study these problems in-depth and to come up with measures to improve the system for the benefit of the general public. On a careful examination and analysis of the problems to be solved, the Government was of the opinion that the question whether the Corporation, with its steady growth would be an unwieldy organization affecting the efficiency of operations resulting in poor performance and

mounting financial losses required examination. One of the aspects which the Government felt required consideration was whether the Corporation should be converted into smaller viable corporation which would facilitate more efficient management of the resources at its command.

13.

After taking into consideration the report submitted by Dorairaj Committee, J.C. Lynn Committee, Kodandaramaiah Committee and the Legislature Committee headed by Sri. P.G.R. Sindhia, after carefully considering the consequences of establishment of three new Corporations, a decision is taken and notifications are issued. The decision was not taken in a hurry. The Government of India was also kept informed about the decision of the State Government to constitute separate Corporations and the Government of India has noted the proposal.

Government. By virtue of the power conferred under Section 3, the Government after due deliberation and with application of mind as required has constituted these Corporations. There is no illegality or irregularity in constituting the new Corporations. The formation of the new Corporation was being considered for a long time for better administration and proper control in discharge of the duties and for providing better service to the commuters. This respondent has exercised the powers judiciously after following the procedures prescribed under the Act and with due deliberations.

15.

By establishment of new Corporations, neither the employees are put to any hardship, nor the petitioners have made out any ground to establish the prejudice that would be caused to the members of the union, which will render the impugned orders illegal. The petitioners apprehend that the respondent would privatize the newly established Corporations. The apprehension of the

petitioners are on hypothetical grounds and without any basis. With the intention to provide efficient and economical service to the commuters, a policy decision is taken to establish three new Corporations to operate in different divisions to ensure proper control. The decision is in public interest. It is not going to affect the service conditions of the petitioners. In fact, the scheme of establishing the Corporations is to the advantage of the employees, as the control is decentralized and the decision is taken both for providing better facilities not only to the commuters, but also to the employees of the Corporation.

Corporation.

The Corporations have already been established and they are functioning and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition.

17.

The three Corporations have also filed their separate statement of objections, in substance, reiterating the aforesaid stand and therefore they are not set out independently.

18.

The learned Counsel for the parties put forth their respective contentions before the learned Single Judge. On the aforesaid pleadings and the rival contentions urged, the learned Single Judge framed the following five points for consideration:

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

“1. Whether the petitioners have got locus standi to challenge the impugned orders and notifications

and are they ‘aggrieved persons’ to file the writ petition?

FINDING OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE 19.

After appreciating the arguments and the material on record, the learned Single Judge held that the first petitioner is the aggrieved person and it has got locus standi to maintain the petition. However, he held that the second petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the

impugned orders. Thereafter he proceeded to hold that in the entire Act, there is no provision for bifurcating the existing Corporations and in its place to establish one or more separate and independent Road Transport Corporations. The option provided under the Act is either to create subsidiary Corporations under Section 17-A of the Act or to supersede the existing Corporation under Section 38 or else to liquidate the Corporation under Section 39 by the State Government. After referring to Section 17-A of the Act, it was held that any further improvement in transport service could have been augmented by creating Subsidiary Corporations under Section 17-A of the Act. Instead of doing so, the State Government went to the extent of bifurcating KSRTC without any power or authority of law to do so. Bifurcating of existing Corporation is impermissible under the provisions of the Act. On the said ground alone, the impugned orders at Annexure-A and B and B1 series notifications are liable to be quashed. Though it is categorically asserted and claimed by the respondents that

the establishment of respondents-5 to 7 are under Section 3 of the Act, in reality, they are nothing but subsidiary Corporation which were required to be established under Section 17-A of the Act after following mandatory procedures as contained in the said Section. Otherwise, the employees transferred to those Corporations from KSRTC will lose their lien in the parent department and their membership ceases in the first petitioner-Federation. If respondents-5 to 7 are treated as subsidiary Corporations of Parent Corporation KSRTC, the KSRTC will have full management and control over the subsidiary Corporations and the members of first petitioner-Federation remain intact. The first petitioner can also retain its right of bargaining power on behalf of its members as a collective bargaining agent on behalf of the employees of the second respondent Corporation throughout the State. Further it held that there is heavy burden upon respondents-3, 5 to 7 by creating separate infrastructures, such as separate Board of Directors, Managing Directors, Chief Accounts Officer and other incidental expenditure to be

incurred are unnecessary and heavy which will not be in public interest. Both the interests of the public and employees will be affected. The object of the Act will be defeated and employees interest will be adversely affected. Since Central Government’s concurrence is not obtained by the State Government before passing the impugned order and issuing the notification, there is violation of statutory provisions of the Act and rule of law. The proposal affecting the service conditions of the employees and creation of Corporations should have been placed before the Cabinet before passing the impugned orders. It has not been done. Therefore the same are vitiated. For the aforesaid reasons, he allowed the writ petitions quashing the impugned orders and notifications. He further observed that it is open to the State Government to establish respondents-3 and 5 to 7 as subsidiary Corporations after following the mandatory procedure under Section 17-A of the Act.

20.

Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the State and the four Corporations have preferred these appeals.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS 21.

Sri. S. Vijayashankar, learned Senior Counsel assailing the impugned order contends that the impugned notifications are issued by the Government by virtue of the power conferred on them under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The aforesaid provision stipulates under what circumstances such a Road Transport Corporation could be established. In the instant case, a reading of the three report make it clear that the conditions stipulated in Section 3 are fulfilled. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis of these three Corporations are established by bifurcating the existing Corporation. For such bifurcation there is no provision in the entire Act and therefore, the impugned notifications are issued. The word ‘bifurcation’ is used in the report in

general manner. Therefore, the word ‘bifurcation’ cannot be read into Section 3 of the Act under which these Corporations are established. It is not a case of the Corporation establishing subsidiary Corporations as contemplated under Section 17-A of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the stand of the Government. Moreover, it is the policy decision of the Government to establish these corporations in order to achieve efficiency in public transport in the State of Karnataka, it is in public interest and therefore, the said policy decision of the Government which in turn based on three reports of the experts is not amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

22.

Sri Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel defending the order of the learned Single Judge contended that the order at Annexure ‘A’ clearly states that the Karnataka State

Road Transport Corporation is bifurcated. In the entire Act, there is no such power conferred on the Government to bifurcate the KSRTC and therefore, the said order dated 22.02.1992 is liable to be set aside on that short ground for want of authority in the Government to pass such order. The case of the appellants is that by virtue of the power conferred on the State under Section 3 of the Act, these Corporations are established. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear, once the Government establishes a Road Transport Corporation for the whole of the State, the power of the State to establish one more Corporation for the State is denuded. According to him, once that power is exercised and a Corporation is set-up in the whole State again the State cannot exercise power under Section 3 and establish any Corporation at all. Therefore, Annexures ‘B1’, ‘B2’ and ‘B3’ under which three Corporations are constituted in place where already the Corporation exists is without the authority of law and therefore, those notifications establishing Corporations are liable to be set aside. Under

the Scheme of the Act once a Corporation is established for the whole State then if the said Corporation for more efficient discharge of its functions under the Act, may formulate a scheme providing for establishment of one or more subsidiary Corporations with the concurrence of the State and the Central Government.

23.

Therefore, what has been done now is for the efficient discharge of the functions, three more Corporations are constituted/established. That has to be only under Section 17A. That is a power which is vested with the Corporation. That power cannot be usurped by the State by invoking Section 3 of the Act and therefore, he submits that these establishments of the Corporations are contrary to law and liable to be set aside. Further he submitted that, no doubt, the policy of the Government is not subjected to judicial review. But that policy of the Government is contrary to the statute then certainly it is subjected to review and is liable to be set aside. In the instant case, a harmonious

reading of Section 3 and Section 17A of the Act, provides for establishment of more than one Corporation for efficient discharge of its duties and it has to be done in the manner prescribed under law and therefore, if the policy of the Government is implemented in a manner contrary to the express provisions of law, then the notifications issued purporting to give effect to the policy is illegal and liable to be set aside. The argument that 16 years have elapsed from the date of issue of the notification and the system is working very well and therefore, no case for interference is made out cannot be countenanced, because if such contentions are upheld for delay in disposal of the case when the respondents are in no way responsible, their valuable rights cannot be taken away on that score. Further he contended the effect of giving effect to these new Corporations is that the employees of the existing KSRTC are transferred to these Corporations without their consent and these new Corporations have no right over these employees and their valuable rights conferred on them under various

labour legislations is not protected, on the contrary it is infringed and therefore the impugned actions are arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

24.

Sri M.C.Narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel supported the aforesaid argument and contended that by virtue of the power conferred under Section 3 of the Act, the State constituted Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, in the year 1961, which had the jurisdiction over the entire State of Karnataka after reorganization in the year 1956. The Road Transport Corporation Act is a self- contained Act. If the object of the establishment of these three Corporations is for efficient discharge of functions, the KSRTC is not destroyed and is not liquidated. Even after formation of these three Corporations, KSRTC continues to have jurisdiction over the entire State of Karnataka. If that is so, the very object with which these three Corporations are established is defeated, the workers who were working in KSRTC lose their valuable rights and transfer of those

employees from KSRTC to these newly established Corporations is not permissible in law. It is under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing these notifications and therefore he submits that no case for interference is made out. He also submitted that prior to the establishment of the Corporation in 1961, in what is popularly known as Bombay Karnataka Area, there was a Corporation, in Hyderabad Karnataka there was another Corporation, in the old Mysore area Government itself was running this transport activity because all of them did not yield their desired result and as such in 1961 this KSRTC was established having jurisdiction over the entire State of Karnataka. In those circumstances, this exercise of bifurcation of the existing Corporation, creation of three more new Corporations would not serve any purpose and rightly the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing these orders.

25.

Sri. L. Govindaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the three newly established Corporations submitted, this petition is filed by the workmen of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation represented by KSRTC Staff and Workers’ Federation. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the assumption that Trade Union which has filed this writ petition and the impugned orders affect the workers’ bargaining power of the Union consequently power and the interest and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the grievance of the petitioners who are before this Court.

26.

Secondly, he submitted that Clause in para 35, the prayer is to hold Section 17-A of the RTC Act, 1950 is inoperative and any action there under would also be invalid. However, the learned Single Judge did not go into the validity of Section 17-A as expressed by him in para 8 of the impugned order. In the ultimate conclusion he has issued

directions at para 24 reserved liberty to the State Government to establish respondent Nos.3 and 5 to 7 as subsidiary corporations after following mandatory procedure under Section 17-A of the Act, which he could not have done. Therefore, the said portion of the order is to be set aside. Further he contends that by virtue of this litigation all the employees of the KSRTC who are now working within the jurisdiction falls within its Corporation continued the work and their service conditions are in no way affected in the last 16 (sixteen) years and therefore, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners in the writ petition is wholly misconceived.

27.

The learned Counsel for the appellants in reply submitted that the Corporations are not established by virtue of the order dated 22.02.1992. What is stated in the said order is only a pre-cursor or harbinger for exercising power under Section 3 of the Act. By the order under Annexure ‘A’ these new Corporations are not established.

They are established only under Section 3 of the Act. Insofar as the argument that once a Road Transport Corporation is constituted under the Act, the Government ceases to have any further power to establish one more Corporation either for the whole State or for a part of it is concerned, such an interpretation is not permissible in law. Section 14 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that where by any Central Act made after commencement of this Act power is conferred then unless a different intention appears that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. Therefore, in the absence of any different intention appearing under section the power under Section 3 can be exercised by the State from time to time as occasion requires. Therefore, when the State Government on the recommendation of three Committees was of the view that for efficient management of Road Transport in the State, it is necessary to bifurcate existing KSRTC and establish three more Corporations, the State has the power under Section 3 to establish such Corporations. Insofar as the interest of the

workers is concerned, it is duly taken care of, not only in the arrangement, but also under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, Standing Orders Act and other Labour legislation. Therefore, he submits that on that score the impugned orders cannot be held to be invalid.

is exercised under Section 3 of the Act on the basis of the report submitted by several committees, being satisfied with establishment of such Corporations as in public interest and therefore she submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing these notifications.

29.

In the light of the aforesaid contention, the points that arise for consideration in these batch of appeals are as under:

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION (1) Whether the State Government has the power to establish three Road Transport Corporations after establishment of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation under Section 3 of the Act?

(2) In the absence of specific provisions in the Act providing for bifurcation of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, whether the State Government could have established the three

Road Transport Corporations for parts of the State?

30.

The first order impugned in the writ petition is in the nature of proceedings of the Government of Karnataka as per Annexure-A, which is dated 22.02.1997. The said proceedings disclose that the report of the Cabinet Sub-Committee dated 22.01.1997 was taken note of. The said Cabinet Sub-Committee was appointed by the Cabinet on 20.10.1995 to formulate Passenger Transport Policy for the State. The Committee met twice thereafter. To make Public Transport in Karnataka more efficient and effective and responsive to the needs of commuters at large, the Sub- committee recommended in its report the following proposals: “1. SEPARATION OF BTS FROM KSRTC AND FORMING A BANGALORE TRANSPORT COMPANY:

The Committee deliberated in detail about the city transport services run by KSRTC,

primarily in Bangalore and other important cites in Karnataka like Mysore, Hubli-Dharwad, Belgaum, Bellary and Gulbarga. Bangalore Transport Service is catering to about 18 to 20 lakh commuters in the Metropolitan City of Bangalore, having a labour strength of approximately 22,000. The committee felt in view of the increasing role of public transport in the City of Bangalore, it needs a separate organization to manage its day to day affairs. The needs of the city travellers are essentially different from that of the moffusil and rural commuters. Government as early as in 1992 had already accorded approval for bifurcation of BTS from KSRTC into a separate entity. The committee while taking note of all these and also the report of the Sindhia Committee fully endorsed the view that the Bangalore Transport Service needs to be separated from KSRTC and formed into an independent company having autonomy in day to day management of its affairs. It also observed, however, that company needs to be supported by the Government in its initial stage to make it fully operational and economically viable.

DIVISION OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

a) The Committee noted the growth of KSRTC for the last 30 years of its existence and also reviewed its performance so far. The organization has become huge and unweildly; and is not able to devote full attention to the needs of the commuters in the fully nationalized districts of Hubli-Dharwad, Belgaum, Karwar, Bijapur, Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur and Bellary.

b) These areas are totally dependent on the State Road Transport Corporation for their daily travel. They need to be provided with other amenities for the convenience of the travelling public and the time has now come to have separate Corporation for these area. Having its Central Office in Bangalore which is at a distance of 300 to 600 Kms from the mid point of the State and its northern end, effective supervision is the first casualty. Centralized administrative control is detrimental to efficiency and quality service. The Central Office as away from the nationalized 9 districts of Northern Karnataka. It was therefore decided that separate Corporations be

formed, one from Bombay-Karnataka area one for Hyderabad-Karnataka are and one for the remaining districts of the State.

Government have examined in detail the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee.

GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.HTD 127 IRA 96 BANGALORE, DATED 22-02-1992

In the background of the details enumerated in the preamble, it is ordered that Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is bifurcated as under: 1) Bangalore Transport Company. 2) Corporation for 4 districts of Dharwad, Karwar, Belgaum and Bijapur Districts. 3) Corporation for Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary Districts. 4) Corporation for the remaining districts of Old Mysore and the nationalized areas.

The modalities of setting up a new Company/Corporations will be worked out by KSRTC.

This order is issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its U.O. Note No.FD15/Expr.6/97, dated 6-1-1997.”

31.

Thereafter the State Government issued three notifications. The first of the said notification was issued establishing the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation for the whole of the City of Bangalore. It reads as under:

“Notification No.HTD 127 TRA 96, Bangalore, dated 29th Mar. 1997 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (Central Act LXIV of 1950) (as amended from time to time), the Government of Karnataka hereby establish with effect from the 1st day of November 1997 a Road Transport Corporation called the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport

Corporation for the whole of the City of Bangalore as defined in the city of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, LXIX 1949 (as amended from time to time and the area comprised within a distance of 25 kilometers beyond the limits of the said city.

This Notification is issued in partial modification of Government Notification No.HD3(1) RTC 57, Bangalore, dated 27th September 1961.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka

Sd/- (B.R. Nainegali) Under Secretary to Government Home and Transport Department (Transport)

32.

Thereafter the Government issued one more notification under Section 3 of the Act establishing North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. It reads as under:

“Home and Transport Secretariat Notification No. HTD 127 TRA 96, Bangalore, Dated: 10th September 1997

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act LXIV of 1950), the Government of Karnataka hereby establish with effect from the 1st day of November 1997, A Road Transport Corporation called the North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation for the revenue districts of Belgaum, Dharwad, Gadag, Haveri, Bijapur, Bagalkote and Uttara Kannada in Karnataka State.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka.

Sd/- (M.C. Chandrakaumari) Deputy Secretary to Government Home and Transport Department (Transport)”

33.

The last of such notification is dated 04.08.2000, again issued under Section 3 of the Act,

establishing North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. It reads thus:

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA No.HTD 65 99(1)

Karnataka Government Secretariat Building Bangalore, dated 04-08-2000

NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950 the Government of Karnataka hereby establish with effect from 15-8- 2000, a Road Transport Corporation called the North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation for the Revenue Districts of Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur, Koppal and Bellary with Head Quarters at Gulbarga. By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka Sd/- (B.R. NAINEGALI_ Under Secretary to Government Home and Transport Department (Transport)

34.

Consequent to the said order, the Government passed an order under Section 34 of the Act on 07.08.1997 in respect of each of the Corporations giving the following directions:

“GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. HBD 127 TRA 96, BANGALORE DATED 07/08/1997

In exercise of the powers conferred under section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Government has given the following direction to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.

1) All the Class 3 and Class 4 employees working in the North and South Divisions of Bangalore City Transport of the present Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation shall be deputed to Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation initially for a period of one year with effect from 15/08/1997 and thereafter be continued or disposed of subject to requirement.

2) The Vice President and the Managing Director of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is empowered to depute the officers of any cadre/class including class 3 and class 4 employees of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation to Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation.

3) The Vice President and the Managing Director of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation shall obtain the Letter of Willingness within three months from all the class 3 and 4 employees working in Bangalore City Transport North and South Division of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation for the year ending on 14-05-1997 whether they intend to work in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation or continue to work in a newly constituted Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation. If the letters of willingness are not submitted within the stipulated time, it shall be presumed that they have opted for continuing their services with Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation.

4) The maintenance of class 1 and class 2 officers cadre shall continue in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation shall have powers to depute these officers to newly constituted corporations subject to requirement. There is no provision to draw deputation allowance on such deputation.

5) The rules, bye-laws, standing orders and modifications prevailing in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation shall be made applicable to newly constituted Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation until framing of new rules and regulations.

6) The areas notified in the order of the Government in No. HBD 127 TRA 96, dated 29/05/1997 shall be the area of operation of the Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation.

7) The vehicles, land, machineries (list of assets), inventory, fixtures and other immovable properties mentioned in the Annexure to this Order shall be deemed to have transferred to the newly constituted corporation (Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation) on as is where is basis.

8) All the liabilities shall be borne by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation till the date of constitution of new corporation. The new corporation shall bear future liabilities if any.

9) The agreements, contracts which are entered by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation with the commercial and other corporations shall be given effect to the Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation. On completion of the term of the previous registered agreements or contractors, the Bangalore metro Transport Corporation may enter into new agreements/contracts.

10) The licensing authority given to commercial and other institutions by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has been transferred to the Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation. After completion of the term of the said licences, the Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation may enter into new agreements/contracts.

11) As far as possible, the Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation shall transfer all the schemes entered by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and law for time being in force.

of BMTC. The newly constituted corporation shall reimburse the cost already paid to the said works by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The procedure of repayment shall be calculated by the Chief Executive Officers of both the corporations and decision shall be arrived. The bills pending with regard to completion of civil work on or after 01/08/1997 shall be taken up and paid by the newly constituted corporation.

15) In all the legal proceedings before the Court, where the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is made as

Respondent, the Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation shall be responsible/ liable for the judgment/orders in so far as it relates to the Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation.

By order and in the name of Government of Karnataka

Sd/- (B. R. Nayanegali) Under Secretary to Government Internal Administration & Transport Dept)

35.

It is these Government Orders and Notifications which are challenged by the petitioners in the writ petitions.

36.

The main ground of attack was, as is clear from the Government Order dated 22.02.1997, the Government has taken a decision to bifurcate the KSRTC into four Corporations. In the scheme of the Act, there is no such power conferred on the State to bifurcate the existing Corporation and establish Corporations. The learned Single Judge accepting the said argument has held that there is no

provision in the Act empowering the State to bifurcate the existing Corporation and therefore the Order dated 22.02.1997 is illegal and therefore is liable to be set aside.

37.

A careful reading of Annexure-A shows that a decision was taken to form Bangalore Transport Company to cater to 18 to 20 lakh commuters in the Metropolitan City of Bangalore by separating the same from KSRTC. But the intention was to form an independent Company having autonomy in day-to-day management of its affairs. Similarly, a decision was taken to establish separate Corporations to devote full attention to the needs of the commuters in Bombay-Karnataka area and Hyderabad-Karnataka area and for remaining districts of the State. Therefore two independent Corporations have to be established for the districts falling within Bombay-Karnataka area and districts which fall within Hyderabad-Karnataka area. It is in this background, the Government took a decision to bifurcate KSRTC to achieve the aforesaid object.

However, they made it very clear in the said order that the modalities of setting up the new Company/Corporation will be worked out by KSRTC.

38.

Therefore, in the said order what was intended was to give effect to the various recommendations made by the various Committees and the word ‘bifurcation’ used in the said order is a generic term in common parlance. It is not a word used in the statute. Therefore merely because the word ‘bifurcation’ is not used in the Act, it cannot be said that the said order where the word ‘bifurcation’ is used is contrary to the Act and the State has no power to bifurcate. If the entire order is read as a whole, the intention was to carve out independent Corporations for the City of Bangalore, for Hyderabad-Karnataka area and Bombay- Karnataka area. As they were not sure about how to go about to achieve the object, the modalities of setting up of the new company or corporation was left to the KSRTC. By the very said order the Corporations are not established. A

Corporation has to be established in accordance with law. Therefore, when no Corporation is established in pursuance of the aforesaid order, it cannot be said that the said order is without the authority of law and as these Corporations are established by bifurcating the KSRTC, the order is illegal.

39.

The material on record discloses that after a decision is taken by the Government to establish independent Corporations, they have looked into the legal aspects. Under the Act Section 3 provides for establishment of Road Transport Corporations in the State. Similarly, Section 17A provides for establishment of subsidiary corporation by the parent Corporation, i.e., KSRTC. As the recommendation of the various committees was to establish an independent Corporation having autonomy in day to day management of its affairs, the State Government thought it fit to invoke the power conferred under Section 3 of the Act and establish the three Corporations. The reason being that, the needs of the city travelers are essentially different from

that of the moffusil and rural commuters and the Government as early as in 1992 had already accorded approval for bifurcation of BTS form KSRTC into a separate entity. It has to be an independent company having autonomy in day to day management of its affairs. Further, after review of the performance of the KSRTC for the last 30 years, it was found that the organization has become huge and unwieldy and is not able to devote full attention to the needs of the commuters in the fully nationalized districts. Having a central office in Bangalore which is at a distance of 300 to 600 Kms from the midpoint of the State and its northern end, effective supervision was the first casualty and centralized administrative control is detrimental to the efficiency and quality service. They did not want to entrust the responsibility to KSRTC for establishing one more subsidiary Corporation for efficient discharge of its functions under the Act. Therefore, they thought it fit to establish independent Corporations under Section 3 of the Act.

40.

Section 3 of the Act reads as under:- 3. Establishment of Road Transport Corporation in the States.- The State Government, having regard to-

(a) the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of road transport; (b) the desirability of coordinating any form of road transport with any other form of transport. (c) The desirability of extending and improving the facilities for road transport in any area and of providing an efficient and economical system of road transport service therein,

may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Road Transport Corporation for the whole or any part of the State under such name as may be specified in the notification.

41.

The argument is that under Section 3 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to establish a Road

Transport Corporation for the whole or any part of the State. Once the State Government establishes a Road Transport for the whole of the State, the power to establish such a Road Transport Corporation stood extinguished and spent itself and it has no power to establish a Road Transport Corporation when already it has established a Road Transport Corporation for the whole of the State. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to have a look at the background with which this Act was enacted. The statement of objects and reasons behind the enactment of the Acts reads as under:-

“The Road Transport Corporation Act, 1948 (XXXII of 1948), was enacted with a view to enable the Provincial Governments, who may so desire, to establish Road Transport Corporations. This Act has been found defective because the provisions of Sections 3(2), 4 and 5 of the Act, insofar as they require certain provisions to be made by the Provincial law, are ultra vires of the Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted. Under the latter Act, the power to legislate in

respect of trade and commence is given to the Provincial Legislatures and the power to legislature for the incorporation of trading corporations is given to the Central Legislature. The creation of statutory transport corporations has been held as amounting to incorporation of trading corporations and as such, ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature. In order to remove the above mentioned legal flaw, it is proposed to replace the existing Act, by a comprehensive Act, enabling such of the Provincial Governments, who may so desire, to set up transport corporations, with the object of providing efficient, adequate,, economical and property coordinated system of road transport services.”

42.

It received the assent of the President on 4th December, 1950. The preamble to the Act reads as under:-

“An Act to provide for the incorporation and regulation of Road Transport Corporations.”

“Corporation” means a Road Transport Corporation established under Section 3.

44.

The circumstances under which the State Government can establish a Road Transport Corporation is enumerated in Section 3.

Before

establishing a Corporation, three factors have to be borne in mind. They are: (1) the State should have regard to the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of road transport;

(2) the desirability of co-ordinating any form of road transport with any other form of transport; and

(3) the desirability of extending and improving the facilities for road transport in any area and of providing an efficient and economical system of road transport service therein.

45.

If these conditions are fulfilled, then the State Government by notification in the official gazette may establish a Road Transport Corporation for the whole or any part of the State. Therefore, a Corporation may be established for the entire State or any part of the State. But, it has to be done by issue of a notification in the official gazette. Clause (c) of Section 3 expressly states that, due regard should be had to the desirability of extending and improving the facilities for road transport in any area. In other words, it pre-supposes that a Road Transport service is already available. It desires to be improved and the object should be to provide an efficient and economical system of road transport service therein, then the Government is empowered to establish a Corporation to any area. Therefore, the argument that once the State exercises the power under Section 3 and establishes a Corporation, the power to establish one more Corporation in respect of the very same area stands extinguished, would be opposed to the express words in the Section.

46.

That apart it was contended the word ‘a’ road transport corporation has to be understood as meaning only one Road Transport Corporation for the whole of the State. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of BHARATPUR MOTOR WORKERS CO-OPEATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [(1974) 2 SCC 702] where it was held that, for statutory construction singular includes plural, does not compel them to read the plural wherever singular is mentioned. It is true the word singular cannot be read as plural unless the context provides for it.

47.

The word ‘a’ is not defined in the Act. When a word is not defined in the Act itself, it is permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the general sense in which that word is understood in common parlance. However, in selecting one out of the various meanings of a word, regard must always be had to the context as it is a fundamental rule that the meanings of words and expressions used in an

Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear. Therefore, when the context makes the meaning of a word quite clear, it becomes unnecessary to search for and select a particular meaning out of the diverse meanings a word is capable of, according to lexicographers. Dictionaries are not dictators of statutory construction where the benignant mood of a law, and more emphatically, the definition clause furnishes a different denotation. A statute cannot always be construed with the dictionary in one hand and the statute in the other. Regard must also be had to the scheme, context and to the legislative history. Words and expressions at times have a ‘technical’ or a ‘legal meaning’ and in that case they are understood in that sense. Judicial decisions expounding the meaning of words in construing statutes in pari materia will have more weight than the meaning furnished by dictionaries. (Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.Singh – pages 279 and 280). It is in this background, it is necessary to understand the

meaning of the word ‘a’ in the context in which it is used in the said Section.

48.

The words “a” or “an” and “the” are called Articles. They come before nouns. There are two Articles – a (or an) and the. “a” or “an” is called the Indefinite Article, because it usually leaves indefinite the person or thing spoken of. “The” is called the Definite Article, because it normally points out some particular person or thing. The indefinite article is used before singular countable nouns. The definite article is used before singular countable nouns, plural countable nouns and uncountable nouns. The indefinite Article is used in two contexts, firstly, in its original numerical sense of one. Secondly, in the vague sense of a certain. It is also used in the sense of any, to single out an individual as the representative of a class. It is also used to make a common noun of a proper noun.

49.

In the Strouds Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases dealing with this letter ‘a’, it is said ‘a’ is sometimes read as ‘the’. ‘a’ may sometimes be read as ‘some’. But, more frequently ‘a’ is the equivalent of ‘any’. However, it is difficult to read ‘a’ as ‘all’.

50.

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, dealing with the letter ‘a’ is stated that, ‘a’ sometimes called indefinite article, used with apparent plurals of number.

51.

Therefore, in the context in which it is used in Section 3 of the Act, it is not possible to accept that the word ‘a’ Road Transport Corporation’ necessarily means a single Road Transport Corporation.

52.

Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 deals with gender and number. It reads as under : -

“13. Gender and number.- In all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.- (1) words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and

(2) words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa.

53.

Therefore, the words in the singular shall include the plurals and vice versa. Similarly, Section 14 of the General Clauses Act reads as under:-

“14. Powers conferred to be exercisable from time to time.-

(1) Where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any power is conferred, then unless a different intention appears that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires.

(2) This section applies also to all Central Acts and Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887.”

54.

In the first place, the word ‘a’ Road Transport Corporation does not mean only a single road transport corporation for the whole of the State. If it is to be construed as single, by virtue of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, it could be plural also. The fact that Section 3 provides for establishment of a Road Transport Corporation in any area where already a Road Transport Corporation is providing service, the argument that a second Road Transport Corporation cannot be established in place of an earlier Road Transport Corporation is unsustainable. If we look into the entire scheme of the Act, the object behind enacting the Act and more so the heading of Section 3 itself, it deals with establishment of a Road Transport Corporation in the States and therefore the argument that once the State Government by virtue of the power conferred under Section 3 of the Act established KSRTC in the year 1961 for the whole State in so

far as the State Government of Karnataka is concerned, that power is exhausted and they have no power to establish one more Corporation even to a part of the State is without any substance.

55.

The object of enacting the Act is to provide for the incorporation and regulation of road transport corporations, i.e., more than one corporation. It is also clear from the express words used in the heading to Section 3. Even Section 4 which follows Section 3 which deals with incorporation makes it clear that, every Corporation shall be a body corporate by the name notified under Section 3 having perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by the said name sue and be sued. Therefore, the word used is ‘every corporation’. It necessarily means more than one Corporation. Therefore, under Section 3 the State Government is empowered to establish more than one Road Transport Corporation for the whole or any part of the State. Such an establishment of a Corporation should be by

notification in the official gazette and read properly the word ‘a’ Road Transport Corporation as it follows by notification in the official gazette it means for establishment of every Road Transport Corporation, a separate notification in the official gazette is to be issued specifying the name in the notification.

56.

In the instant case the context certainly provides for reading the letter ‘a’ as plural. If the word ‘a’ is to be construed as singular by virtue of Sections 13 and 14 of the General Clauses Act, it has to be read as plural. Even otherwise, the context in which that Section is enacted coupled with the heading, the subsequent Section, the preamble and the object of the Act makes it abundantly clear it is not meant to be read as singular.

57.

The next argument was Section 17A provides for establishment of one or more subsidiary provisions which is to be established by the parent Corporation with the

concurrence of the State Government and the Central Government. When the statute provides for establishment of one or more subsidiary Corporations specifying under section 17A what has to be done under Section 17A cannot be done under Section 3. We do not find any substance in the said argument also. Section 3 empowers the State Government to establish a Corporation. Whereas Section 17A empowers the parent Corporation to establish one or more subsidiary Corporations to efficiently discharge its functions under the Act. Therefore, both these Sections operate exclusively and in different spheres.

58.

A reading of the Writ Petition shows that, the grievance of the petitioners appears to be that the State has exercised the power under Section 17A. While doing so it has not complied with the legal requirements mentioned therein and therefore these notifications are liable to be set aside. The learned single Judge proceeds on that basis. The reasoning given is, in the Government Order-Annexure A,

but the provision of law under which the Government Order is passed is not mentioned. When a Government passes an order it is not the requirement of law that they should mention the provision under which they are making any such order. In this case the Government Order shows the application of mind by the Government to the problems which was before them and they have taken a decision. After taking the decision it has to be implemented. It is while implementing the decision the Government has to look into the legal position and then act in accordance with law. It is here, after the decision is taken and the KSRTC was empowered to implement that decision, then they have looked into various provisions. After considering both Section 3 and 17A, keeping in mind the object and the recommendation of the various committees and the object sought to be achieved, Section 3 is invoked. In each of the notifications issued, Section 3 is referred to and after referring to Section 3 the notifications are issued. Therefore, the impugned notifications are issued by the State

Government by virtue of the power conferred on them under Section 3. The Government has not exercised the power under Section 17A, as Section17A does not confer any power on the Government to establish any Corporation. That provision empowers the parent Corporation to establish subsidiary Corporations subject to the conditions fulfilled therein and in particular with the concurrence of the State and the Central Government. Therefore, the finding of the learned single Judge that the Government Order and the notifications issued under Section 3 of the Act are illegal, contrary to the statute and requires to be set aside is incorrect and, therefore, the order of the learned single Judge requires to be set aside.

59.

This Writ Petition is filed by the workers of the KSRTC. Their apprehension is that the establishment of these Corporations is a prologue to privatization, in view of the globalization policy adopted by the Central Government in the year 1994. The said apprehension is misconceived.

Now, 16 years have lapsed. Corporations have come into existence. They are working smoothly. There is no attempt on the part of the State to privatize these Corporations and, therefore, this apprehension is misconceived is clearly established.

60.

Secondly, it was contended that the establishment of 4 Corporations is prejudicial to the interest of the employees. The employees would be compelled to work in those newly constituted Corporations without their consent which is impermissible in law. It is pointed out in the statement of objections that all the employees of KSRTC would continue as employees of KSRTC notwithstanding the establishment of these Corporations and they would be transferred to the Corporations only if they give their consent. Even otherwise, if they are transferred against their wish and consent to these newly established Corporations, their rights are protected under law. If and when their rights are so infringed, it is open to them to approach a competent

Court and adjudicate their rights. On a mere apprehension that they are going to be transferred, their rights are going to be affected, at their instance the decision of the Government and the establishment of the Corporations which are validly done in accordance with law cannot be set at naught. As rightly pointed out by the respondents in the statement of objections that, with the establishment of new Corporations, probably the prospects of the employees would be better. With decentralization probably they would have the better opportunity of promotion. It is submitted that by virtue of the pendency of the litigation for the last more than 10 years everything is in a stand still. Their service conditions are in no way affected. The State or the Corporation has no intention of affecting their service conditions. They have undertaken to protect their interest notwithstanding the establishment of these Corporations.

61.

The last ground urged was the bargaining power of the Union would be reduced. That cannot be a ground for

setting at naught a valid exercise of power under a statute which is in public interest. Whether it is a management or a Corporation or employees of the Corporation should know that the Corporation does not exist for them. It exists for the general public. They are there to serve them. They have every right to protect their interest. Beyond that right they have no other right. We fail to understand how the bargaining power of the Union would be lessened or reduced by establishment of these new Corporations. At the most, now there is one Union, then there will be 4 unions. The employees would get opportunity to participate in the union, each one will have opportunity to bargain with the employer. Therefore, on these apprehensions the act of the State in the interest of public cannot be set aside by the Court. In fact, in the beginning this Writ Petition was filed as a public interest. By an order of this Court, the word ‘public interest’ was rightly removed as no public interest was involved. It is a private interest litigation which was filed in the garb of public interest. Nonetheless, in no way the interest of the

workers of these Corporations is affected. Their rights are fully protected under law and therefore, we do not see any justification to entertain the Writ Petitions.

62.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of the REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, JAIPUR AND OTHERS vs SUNDARDAS BHASIN [AIR 1983 SC 181] where the Constitution Bench has interpreted the word ‘building’ in Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 which has no application to the facts of this case.

63.

Similarly, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s DHANDHANIA KEDIA AND CO., vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [AIR 1959 SC 219] where the word ‘previous year’ fell for consideration. Under the Income Tax Act, the word ‘previous year’ is defined. When an attempt was made to give a generic meaning to the

word ‘previous year’ it was held it is not permissible under law and that judgment also has no application to the facts of this case.

64.

It is submitted that because of the establishment of these new Corporations, initially the two Corporations suffered loss in their business and those employees who retired from service at that point of time, who were working in these Corporations have not been paid the retiremental benefits. It is submitted that these Corporations now have started making profits and therefore a submission was made that in respect of those employees who have retired from service, a direction should be issued to see that their retiremental benefits are paid at the earliest so that they can survive.

65.

We find full substance in the said contention. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that we have set aside the order of the learned single Judge, dismissed the Writ

Petitions, upheld the establishment of these separate Corporations, certainly all this would not come in the way of the Corporation discharging their statutory obligations to the employees who have worked in these institutions.

66.

For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following order:-

(i) All the Writ Appeals are allowed.

(ii) The impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is hereby set aside.

(iii) The Writ Petitions are dismissed.

(iv) All the arrears due to the retired workmen of these newly constituted Corporations shall be paid within three months from today. In the event of default in payment of the said amount, the amount due shall be paid with interest at 12%. This interest is in addition to the statutory

interest to which these workmen are entitled to under the respective statutes.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

Jt/ksp/ckl