No conductor's job without training

NT Correspondent

Dharwad:

A person who was selected as a conductor but failed to appear for training was dismissed from service for being absent. The Karnataka High Court has held that the dismissed bus conductor cannot claim reinstatement on grounds that he was an employee as he has not even completed the training. Virupakshappa, a resident of Vijaypura, approached the division bench of the High Court of Karnataka in 2022 after his petition before a singlejudge bench went against him.

His appeal was heard and judgment was delivered by the division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum on January 19, 2023. Virupakshapp who is now 53 was selected as a conductor-cum-trainee by the North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NEKRTC) and was sent to undergo training for one year. But the NEKRTC found that he had remained unauthorisedly absent for almost 365 days and after an enquiry removed him from service by an order dated March 24, 2005.

He approached the Labour Court and filed an industrial dispute. The Court allowed his petition in part and set aside the order of dismissal and directed the Corporation to reinstate him into service without backwages and continuity of service. HC Backs NEKRTC NEKRTC filed a petition in the High Court in 2011. The single-judge bench of the HC reversed the order of the Labour Court for two reasons. Firstly, it was held that a trainee drivercum-conductor cannot be equated with a regular driver-cum-conductor and does not fall within the definition of ‘Corporation Servant’.

Secondly, it was found that he was absent for a period of 365 days therefore the Corporation was justified in removing him from service. Virupakshappa approached the division bench with his appeal. The HC cited another judgment of a division bench in a similar matter and said, “The Division Bench of this Court dealing with an identical case was of the view that the appellant therein was required to undergo training as a conductor when his name was included in the selected list and is not a corporation servant and therefore not entitled for an order of appointment and seek appointment to the vacant post of conductor before successfully completing his training as required under Regulatoins.”

Dismissing the appeal, the HC said that the single judge order “are found to be strictly in consonance with the principles laid down by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.”