Holding

A Badli worker does not enjoy any statutory right of continued service and may be terminated like a probationer; compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act or elaborate natural‑justice procedures is not required, and if termination is defective the worker remains only on the wait list, not automatically absorbed.

Summary

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) appointed the respondents as Badli conductors, a day‑to‑day temporary position governed by the KSRTC Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982. After repeated misconduct, the corporation terminated their services, removed them from the select list and forfeited any future appointment. The Labour Court and High Court set aside the termination, holding that natural justice had not been observed and ordering reinstatement. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Badli workers have any statutory right to continued service, whether Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies, and the extent of natural‑justice requirements. The Court held that Badli workers are akin to probationers, have no legal right to remain in service, and may be terminated without compliance with Section 25F or elaborate procedural safeguards; if a termination is legally defective, the worker merely remains on the wait list and is not automatically absorbed. Consequently, the lower‑court awards were set aside and the appeals allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a Badli worker is entitled to a statutory right of continued service under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether termination of a Badli worker’s services must comply with Section 25F (and related provisions) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether principles of natural justice are mandatory in the termination of Badli workers.
Whether a Badli worker whose name appears on the wait list can be automatically absorbed into regular service after termination.
Whether the termination order was valid in view of the respondent’s alleged misconduct.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Acts. 25B, s. 25F

Subjects

Badli workertemporary employeetermination of serviceIndustrial Disputes ActSection 25Fnatural justiceprobationerwait listKarnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Judgment

A KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND
ANR.
v.
S.G. KOTTURAPPA AND ANR.

MARCH 3, 2005
B
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]
--
Labour laws:

c Badli workers-Status and rights o/--Held: Badli worker does not enjoy
any status as a worker-His services are not protected and can be terminated
iffound unsatisfactory like that ofa probationer-Status of temporary employee
is higher than Badli worker-Rights of Badfi workers are not absolute in
nature-He can raise dispute with regard to wrongful termination of services
D only on violation of mandatory statutory provisions.

Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950-Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulation, 1982-RegulatiOns 4(6)
and 10(5)-Badli workers appointed, services utilised on day to day basis,
repeated acts of misco11duct by them-Termination of services finding services
E unsatisfactory-Correctness of -Held : Badli workers do not acquire any
legal right to continue in service nor protection under the Industrial Disputes
Act since they have not completed 240 days of service as required under
section 25F of the 1947 Act-Also principles of natural justice complied with
before imposing punishment-Hence, termination order cannot be faulted
F with-Even if termination order is found bad in law, worker's name can only
be considered to continue in wait list and cannot be automatically absorbed
in service-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 25F-Administrative Law.

Appellants-State Road Transport Corporation appointed
respondents as Badli Conductors on badli basis. Respondent in the first
appeal committed repeated acts of misconduct and minor punishments
were imposed. Appellants on finding his services to be unsatisfactory,
terminated his services. He was discontinued from utilization as Badli and
his name was removed from the select list and also his chance of further
appointment as conductor in terms of his selection was forfeited.
-
Respondents raised industrial disputes. State filed references before the
520
K.S.R.T.C. v. S.G. KOTTURAPPA 521
La.bour Court. Both Labour Court and High Court relying on the decision A
of this Court in S. Govindaraju '" Karnataka S.R. T.C. and Anr., passed
awards holding that the termination order were bad in law for non
compliance with the principles of natural justice and directed
reinstatement of workmen with full back wages. Hence the present appeals.

Appellant-State Road Transport Corporation contended that it was B
not a case-where workman had completed 240 days of service as contained
in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as such the respondent
did not derive any legal right to continue as a Badli worker and the
decision of this Court in S. Govindaraju v. Karnataka S.R. TC. and Anr., is
not applicable; that compliance of principles of natural justice would have C
been rendered in futility inasmuch past misconduct committed by the
respondent stood admitted; and that the respondent was given an
opportunity of hearing before imposing punishment.

Respondent-workman contended that the conditions of service of the
Badli workmen being governed by the Karnataka State Road Transport D
Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982, as such the right
to continue in service is a statutory right; and that the disqualification
relating to forfeiture as contemplated under Regulation 10(5) is declared
by High Court in some other matter as invalid, deserves strict construction
since by the termination order the right of the respondent to be taken in
permanent service of the appellant stood forfeited. E
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1.1. Regulation 16 of the KSRTC C&R Regulations 1968
and the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and
Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 are pointer to the fact that the rights of F
the Badli workers are not absolute in nature. The terms and conditions
of employment of a Badli worker may have a statutory flavour but the
same would not mean that it is not otherwise contractual. So long as a
worker remains a Badli worker, he does not enjoy a status. His services
are not protected by reason of any provisions of the statute. He does not G
hold a civil post. The status of a Badli worker cannot be better than a
probationer whose services can be terminated for not being able to
complete the period of probation satisfactorily, there is no reason as to
why the same standard cannot be held to be applicable in the case of Badli
worker. The status of a temporary employee is higher than a Badli worker.
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 2 S.C.R.

A A dispute as regard purported wrongful termination of services can be
raised only if such termination takes place in violation of the mandatory
provisions of the statute governing the services. Services of a temporary
employee or a badli worker can be terminated upon compliance. of the
contractual or statutory requirements.
(528-D, H; 531-G; 534-A~B; 530-C; 531-H; 532-AJ
B
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, [19911 1
sec 691, relied on.
Municipal Committee, Sirsa v. Munshi Ram, JT (2005) 2 SC 117 and
C Registrar, High Court of Gujarat and Anr. v. C.G. Sharma, [2005) 1 SCC
132, referred to.

1.2. It is not a case where the respondent has completed 240 days of
service during the period of 12 months preceding such termination as
contemplated under Section 25-F read with Section 25-8 of the Industrial
D Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the Badli workers did not acquire any legal right
to continue in service and were not even entitled to the protection under
the 1947 Act. (530-F-GJ

S. Govindaraju v. Karnataka S.R.T.C. and Anr., [1986] 3 SCC 273,
distinguished.
E
1.3. The mode of appointment as per the provisions of the Road
Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and the Regulations framed postulates
appointment in three tiers. A select list of selected candidates prepared
by the selection authority is required to be equal to the number of existing
vacancies plus vacancies that may arise over a period of one year from
F the date of publkation as may be assessed by the Selection Authority and
only in exceptional cases, the validity thereof can be extended for a period
.not exceeding six months. Sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation 10 postulates
pre-paration of a wait list. The person whose name appears in such wait
list may either be appointed as temporary employee or engaged as Badli
G worker on day to day basis in any vacancy caused by absence of any
employee and would be paid for the number of days he works as such
either daily or once in a month. The select list or the wait list, as the case
may be, therefore, does not have an indefinite life. (530-C-D, B, DI

1.4. A person does not have a right to appointment only because his -
H name has appeared in the select list. In a case of Badli worker, his name
- K.S.R.T.C. v. S.G. KOTTURAPPA 523

appears not in the select list but in the wait list. Even in a case where the A
order of termination is found to be bad in law, his name can only be
considered to continue in the wait list and thus, he could not have been
automatically absorbed in service. 1532-F-GI

Dr. J. Shashidhara Prasad v. Governor of Karnataka and Anr., (1999)
t sec 422, relied on. B
1.5. A bare perusal of the memo in terms whereof the respondent
was appointed clearly states that he was appointed in the Corporation and
did not have any right merely because his services were so utilized on day
to day basis. The services of a Badli worker may be discontinued, if for C
any reason he is not found suitable for the job for which his services were
utilized as Bad Ii. A Badli worker is eligible for payment of wages only for
the number of days his services are utilized. 1530-El

1.6. Regulation 4 provides for eligibility for disqualifications for
appointment. The expression disqualification does not require strict D
construction in all situations, as meaning thereof must be rendered .keeping
in view the text and context of the statute. 1529-A, C-D)

K. Prabhakaran etc. v. P. Jayarajan etc., (2005) 1 SCC 754, relied
on.
E
1. 7. The question as to what extent, principles of natural justice are
required to be complied with would depend upon the fact situation
obtaining in each case. The principles of natural justice cannot be ai;plied
- .... in vacuum and cannot be put in any straight jacket formula. The principles
of natural justice are not required to be complied with when it will lead F
to an empty formality. In a case of this nature employer is to apply the
objective criteria for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. If the criteria
required for arriving at objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the principles
of natural justice may not have to be complied with. In the instant case,
misconduct is proved against the workman. In view of the fact that the
objective satisfaction stood complied with before imposing punishments G
upon the respondents on each occasion, the respondents could not have
improved their stand even if a further opportunity was given.
Furthermore, before imposing the punishments upon the respondent,
opportunities of hearing had been granted to the concerned workman is
not denied or disputed. Imposition of such punishment upon workmen H
have not been questioned by them. They accepted the same and it attained
A
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

finality. In that situation if the services of the respondents were found
----
unsatisfactory and they were discontinued from service, action of the
appellant cannot be faulted with. (533-D-G, B-DI

Escorts Farms Ltd., Previously known as Mis Escorts Farms (Ramgarh)
Ltd v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, UP. and Ors., (2004) 4
B SCC 281; Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kera/a, [2004[ 6 SCC 31 I;
A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 112
and Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman and Nicobar Islands
v. Munnu Barrick and Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 237, relied on.·
I : ~

C CfVfL APPELLATE JURfSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4868 of 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9 . 97 of the Karnataka High
Court in W.A. No. 373 o.f 1997.

WITH
D· C.A. No. 4869 of 1999.

K.R. Nagaraja and Ms.E.R. Sumathy for the Appellants.

Naveen R. Nath, Mrs. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Anitha Shenoy and Ms.
Hetu Arora for the Respondents.
E
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. INTRODUCTION· : ' !

The Respondents were appointed as Badli Conductors by the Appellant
F herein. Their services having been found to be not satisfactory were terminated
by an order dated 11.11.1983 and 9.9.1980 respectively. Industrial disputes
in relation thereto having been raised by the Respondents herein, references
were made by the State of Kamataka for adjudication thereof before the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bangalore which were marked as Reference
G Nos. 57 of 1986 and 42 of 1983. By reason ofawards dated 21.3.1987 and
31. l 0.1986, the respective orders of termination of the Respondents passed
by the Appellant herein were held to be bad in law on the premise that the
principles of natural justice had not been complied with and the workmen
were directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages. The Appellant
H herein filed writ petitions thereagainst before the Karnataka High Court which
by reason of the impugned judgments were dismissed. The Appellant is, thus,
K.S.R.T.C. v. S.G. KOTTURAPPA [SINHA. J.] 525

before us. A
FACTUAL BACKGROUND :

The factual aspect of the matter may be noticed by us from Civil
Appeal No. 4868 of 1999.
B
The Respondent was appointed by a Memo. Dated 13.5.1982 in substitute
vacancies arising out of Suspension Pending Enquiry/Suspension as a measure
of specific punishment and absent cases etc., inter alia, on the following
terms and conditions :

"I. You as a Badli (sic) is not an appointee in the Corporation C
and do not have any right merely because your services are so utilized
on day-to-day basis.

2. You are not entitled to any kind of leave or other facilities to
which the regular employees are entitled to.
D
3. You are not transferable from place of your utilization so
long as you remain Badli.

4. You will be eligible for payment of wages for the number of
days you are utilized for the job as such either daily or monthly, as
per the rates prevailing in the Corporation.
E
5. Your utilization as Bad Ii will be discontinued if for any reason,
your services are found not suitable for the job for which you are
utilised as Badli."

Allegedly, the Respondent committed misconduct on 13 occasions and
upon enquiries held in that behalf, minor punishments were imposed upon F
him. The history-sheet in relation to the said Respondent is as under :

"HISTORY SHEET
Name : H.S. Keshav Murthy, Conductor
SI. Case No. Nature of misconduct Punishment G
No. reported or nature of good work Imposed
reported
I. 1344/79 Non account of one un-punched
ticket. 6.00 1.12. 99 Warned
H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 2 S.C.R.

A 2. 1343/79 Non account of two tickets. 5.60 Warned
.,
.), 1480/79 Non account of one luggage ticket
Non account of one ticket.
2.30 9.11. 79 Warned
4. 1612/79 Non account of 2/1 tickets
B Issue of tickets on sight
Disorder by behaviour Sel"Vice
Way bill irregularities 13.11.79 Withdrawn
5. 1615/79 Not issual of 4 tickets - 22.11. 79
6. 1617/79 Not issual of 4 tickets Stopped from
c Non account of 4 tickets duty. Finally
warned
25.2.80
7. 900180 Damages to the property door Memo cost
of Veh. No. 6651 and insubordinations recovered and
1.5.80 continued.
D 8. 1166/80 Hurriedly issue of 4 tickets & issued Stopped duty
the same to the passengers without for 7 days
punching 11.5.80
9. 625/80 Possession of excess cash of Rs. 45.30 Stopped duty
3.6.80 for IO days
E 10. 1457/80 Non issual of one ticket 9.8.80 Stopped duty
for 2 days
11. 1115/80 Re-issual of 14 tickets 14.8.80 Removed from
Badli list.

Relying on or on the basis of the said purported conduct on the part of
the Respondent herein during the aforementioned period, he was discontinued
F
from the select list as Badli and his name was removed therefrom by an order
dated 11. I I .1983, stating :

"Sri S.G. Kotturrappa was utilized as a Badli Conductor on badli
basis under clear terms and conditions stipulated in the order cited
G above as per which the undersigned being the Competent Authority
is empowered to discontinue from utilization as Bad Ii Worker any of
the select list candidate as and when he is found not suitable during
the period he is engaged on badli duties. ·

During the period of utilization as Badli Woker, his services were
H found to be unsatisfactory. He is therefore found not suitable for the
K.S.R.T.C. v. S.G. KOTTURAPPA [SINHA, .I.] 527
post for which he was utilized as Badli and he is discontinued from A
utilization as Badli and his name is removed from the Select list. His
/

chance for further appointment as Conductor in terms of his selection,
is forfeited."

IMPUGNED AWARD AND JUDGMENT:
B
The Labour Court as ·also the High Court passed the impugned awards
and judgment relying on or on the basis of a decision of this c;ourt in S.
Govindaraju v. Karnataka S.R. T. C. and Anr., .[ 1986] 3 SCC 273 wherein it
was held that as by reason of such discontinuance in service, the Respondent
had forfeited his chance of being appointed having been found unsuitable
therefor, it was imperative on the part of the Appellant herein to afford an C
opportunity of hearing to him.

CONTENTIONS :

Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant herein, raised two submissions before us. Firstly, the learned counsel D
would contend that having regard to the offer of appointment, the Respondent
did not derive any legal right to continue as a Badli worker. Reliance in this
behalf has been placed on State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore
Shukla [1991] 1 SCC 691. The decision of this Court in S. Govindaraju
(supra), according to Mr. Nagaraja, is not applicable to the facts and E
circumstances of this case inasmuch as the concerned workman therein having
completed 240 .days of service during the preceding twelve months derived
a right to continue, and, thus, the conditions precedent for termination thereof
as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were required
to be complied with, which provision has no application in the instant case.
Secondly, compliance of principles of natural justice would have been rendered F
in futility inasmuch past misconduct committed by the Respondent herein
stood admitted. It is further not in dispute that before imposing such.
punishment, the Respondent had been given an opportunity of hearing.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, oit the
other hand, would submit that the Respondent herein underwent the process G
of selection in terms of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
,(Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 framed under Section 45 of the
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and, thus, derived a right to continue
in service. It was contended that the conditions of service of the BadIi workmen
being governed by the statutory regulations as contra-distinguished from H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A contractual terms, the right to continue in service is a statutory right. The
disqualification as contempfated under Sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation I 0,
it was urged, deserves strict construction. As by reason of the order of
tennination of the service, the right of the Respondent to be taken in permanent
service of the Appellant Corporation stood forfeited, the learned counsel for
B the Respondent would submit, the Respondents must be.held to have suffered
civil consequences.

CONDITIONS OF SERVICES :

The Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 was enacted by the
C Parliament to provide for the incorporation and regulation of Road Transport
Corporations~ The Appellant-Corporation was constituted in terms 'of the
provisions of the said Act: Section 45 of the 1950 Act empowers the
Corporation to make regulations with the previous sanction of the State
Government and the rules made thereunder for the administration of the
affairs of the Corporation. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said power, the
D Appellant framed the Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre
and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982. Before coming into force of the 1982
Regulations, the MSRTC C&R Regulations 1968 held the field, Regulation
16 whereof reads as under :

"16. Procedure for Appointment of Badlis.-
E
l. A 'BADLI' worker is one who is employed on a day to day
basis in any vacancy caused by the absence of any employee and
who is paid for the number of days he works as such, either daily or
once in a month.

F 2. A list of Badli workers shall be maintained in a Depot or
Workshops. The appointment of a Badli worker shall be made fiom
among those in .the list 9f Badli workers who are present at the
Depot/Workshop, preference being given to the person who arrived
first at the place of duty. If for any reason a Badli worker is not found
suitable for the post, his name may be removed from the list of Bad Ii
G workers.

3. A badli worke'r would be eligible for such day to day
appointment as long as his name figures in t~e list of Badli workers.''

The regulations are pointers to the fact that the rights of the Badli
H workers are not absolute in nature.
K.S.R.T.C. v. S.G. KOTTURAPPA [SINHA . .I.] 529

The 1982 Regulations came into force with effect from 1.1.1983 and A
Regulation 4 provides for eligibility for appointment and disqualifications for
appointment, Sub-Regulation (6) whereof reads as under :.

"No person who has been convicted in an offence, involving
moral turpitude by a Court of law or dismissed from service in this
Corporation or Government, State or Central or any Local Bodies or B
any Industrial or Commercial concerns or other State Transport
Undertakings for offence or misconduct involving moral turpitude, or
a selected candidate removed/terminated for offence of misconduct
while working as Badli in the Corporation shall be eligible for
appointment."
c
The expression 'disqualification' in our opinion does not require strict
construction in all situations as meaning thereof must be rendered keeping in
view the text and context of the statute. [See K. Prabhakaran etc. v. P.
Jayarajan etc., [2005] 1 sec 754].

Regulation 10 provides for procedure for appointment, Sub-Regulation
D
(5) whereof reads as under :

"A selected candidate waiting for being appointed regularly in
accordance with these Regulations may be appointed as a temporary
employee before such regular appointment against a short term vacancy E
or as a substitute in place of regular employee under suspension
pending enquiry or suspension as a measure of punishment or on
leave for a period not less than one month but not exceeding 3
months."

It is not in dispute that by a judgment and order dated 13.2.1987 passed F
in Writ Petition Nos. 14625 to 14627 of 1986, the Kamataka High Court
declared the last sentence relating to forfeiture in Regulation 10(5) as invalid,
whereupon an amendment was introduced therein with effect from 13.9.1989
deleting the last sentence.

The power of appointment is vested in the Corporation by reason of the G
provisions of the said Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. 'Selected
candidate' has been defined in Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 2 to mean
a candidate whose name appears in a list of candidates selected for appointment
to any service, class or category by the Selection Authority. The said
Regulations provide for method of recruitment, the qualifications required H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2()05] 2 S.C.R.

A therefor, the mode of selection, probation etc. A select list for appointment
of the permanent workman is contained in Sub-Regulations (4) and (5) of
Regulation 9. Such select list is to be prepared after interviewing the candidates
who were found suitable therefor in order of merit. Sub-Regulation (5) of
Regulation 10, however, postulates preparation of a wait list. The person
B whose name appears in such wait list may either be appointed as temporary
employee or engaged as Badli worker on day to day basis in any vacancy
caused by absence of any employee and would be paid for the number of
days he works as such either daily or once in a month.

The mode of appointment, therefore, postulates appointment in three
C tiers. The status of a temporary employee is higher than a Badli worker. The.
names ofBadli workers are not to be included in the select listbut in the wait ·
list. A ·select list of selected candidates prepared by the selection authority is
required to be equal to the number of existing vacancies plus vacancies that
may arise over a period of one year from the date of publication as may be
assessed by the Selection Authority and only in exceptional cases, the validity
D thereof can be extended for a period not exceeding six months. The select list
or the wait list, as the case may be, therefore, does not have an indefinite life.
A bare perusal of the memo. dated 13.5.1982 in terms whereof the Respondent
was appointed clearly states that he was appointed in the Corporation and did
not have any right merely because his services wereoSo utilized on day to day
E basis. The services of a Badli worker may be discontinued, if for any reason
he is not found suitable for the job for which his services were utilized as
Badli. A Badli worker is eligible for payment of wages only for the number
of days his services are utilized.

The contentions of the parties as regard the status of the Respondent
F are, therefore, required to be considered in the aforementioned backdrop.

It is not a case where the Respondent .has completed 240 days of service
during the period of 12 months preceding such termination as contemplated
under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. The Badli workers, thus, did not acquire any legal right to continue in
G service. They were not even entitled to the protection under the Industrial
Disputes Act nor the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes were required to be complied with before terminating his services,
unless they complete 240 days service within a period of twelve m~_nths
preceding the date of termination.

H Even where an adverse report regarding the work of a temporary
K.S.R.T.C. v. S.G. KOTTURAPPA [SINHA . .I.] 531

Government servant is made or a preliminary enquiry on the allegation of A
improper conduct is carried out, the same would not stand in the way of the
employer to terminate his service.

See Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra). This Court in Kaushal Kishore
(supra) distinguished its earlier decisions in Nepal Singh v. State of UP.,
[I 985] 1 SCC 56 and Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab and B
Haryana, [1988] 3 SCC 370. The Court noticed that since a temporary
Government servant is entitled to protection of Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution in the same manner as a permanent Government servant, very
often the question arises as to whether an order of termination is in accordance
with the contract of service and relevant rules regulating the temporary C
employment or it is by way of punishment and held :

"3. In the instant case the respondent was a temporary government
servant and there was adverse report regarding his work which was
reflected in the adverse remarks made for the year 1977~78. The
competent authority held a preliminary inquiry in the allegations of D
improper conduct in carrying out unauthorised audit of Boys Fund of
an educational institution, on result of the preliminary enquiry no
charges were framed against the respondent, no officer was appointed
for holding the departmental inquiry instead the competent authority
chose to terminate the respondent's services in exercise of its power
under the terms of contract as well as under the relevant rules E
applicable to a temporary government servant. It never intended to
dismiss the respondent from service. Holding of preliminary inquiry
does not affect the nature of the termination order. The allegations
made against the respondent contained in the counter-affidavit by
way a defence filed on behalfofthe appellants also do not change the p
nature and character of the order of termination. The High Court
failed to consider the question in proper perspective and it interfered
with the order of termination in a casual manner."

The tenns and conditions of employment of a Badli worker may have
a statutory flavour but the same would not mean that it is not otherwise G
contractual. So long as a worker remains a Badli worker, he does not enjoy
a status. His services are not protected by reason of any provisions of the
statute. He does not hold a civil post. A dispute as regard purported wrongful
termination of services can be raised only if such termination takes place in
violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute governing the services.
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A Services of a temporary employee or a bad Ii worker can be terminated upon
compliance of the contractual or statutory requirements.

NATURAL JUSTICE :

In Govindaraju (supra), the concerned workme~ had worked for more
B than 240 days, his retrenchment came within the purview of Section 2(oo)
(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Despite the fact t!-iat provisions contained
in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with,
I
this Court held that as in terms .of Sub-Regulation 5 of Regulation 10 his )
name should have been removed from the select list, serious consequences ~
C entail as he forfeited his right to employment in future and, thus, the principles
of natural justice were required to be complied with though no elaborate
enquiry would be necessary, holding :

" .......... Giving an opportunity of explanation would meet ~he bare
-minimal requirement of natural justice. Before the services of an
employee are terminated, resulting in forfeiture of his right to be
D
considered for employment, opportunity of explanat~on must be
afforded to the employee concerned, The appellant was not afforded
any opportunity. of explanation before the issue of the impugned
order; consequently the order is rendered null and void being ....
'

E
inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.. ~ .. "
-.
In that case it was held that the provisions of Section 25-F were not
complied with. As the statutory requirements of payment of compensation
were conditions precedent for retrenchment of the workman, it was invalid
and operative, and, thus, it was not necessary for this Court to determine the
, larger question.
F
Govindaraju (supra) has been distinguished by this Court in Dr. J
Shashidhara Prasad v. Governor of Karnataka and Anr:, [ 1999] l SCC 422.
The observation as regard the right of a person to remain in the select list was
doubted in view of the subsequent decisions on the point. This Court
categorically held that a person does not have a right to appointment only
G because his hame had ~ppeared in the select list. In a case e>f Badli worker,
his name appears not in the select list but in the wait list. Even in a· case
where the order of termination is found to be bad in law, his name can only
be considered to continue in the wait list and, thus, he could not have been
automatically absorbed in the service.
H
K.S.R.T.C. v. S.G. KOTTlJRAPPA [SINHA . .I.] 533

In any event, in the instant cases, it has not been found that the A
Respondent was entitled, before his services were terminated, to receive
compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act. It was not a case where the services of the Respondent could
have been terminated only in compliance with the provisions of Section 25-
F and on the Appellant's failure to do so he had derived a right to continue
in service. Furthermore, in Govindaraju (supra) there was no case of proved B
misconduct made out against the workman unlike the present cases. In this
case, the Appellant's contention that before imposing the punishments upon
the Respondent, opportunities of hearing had been granted to the concerned
workman is not denied or disputed. Imposition of such punishment upon the
workmen had not been questioned by them. They accepted the same and, C
thus, the same attained finality. The history-sheet of the Respondents clearly
show that opportunities after opportunities had been given to them to improve
themselves but they did not avail the same. It was in that situation if the
services of the Respondents were found not satisfactory and they were
discontinued from service, no fault can be found with the action the Appellant
herein. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. D
The High Court of Karnataka had declared the last sentence of Sub-Regulation
(5) of Regulation 10 as invalid. In view of such declaration, the Respondent
did not forfeit his right for being considered for appointment from the select
list subject, of course, to fulfillment of other conditions, if any. The question
as to what extent, principles of natural justice are required to be complied E
with would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. The
principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. It cannot be put in
any straight jacket formula. The principles of natural justice are fut1hermore
not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality.
What is needed for the employer in a case of this nature is to apply the
objective criteria for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. If the criterias F
I required for arriving at an objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the principles
of natural justice may not have to be complied with, in view of the fact that
the same stood complied with before imposing punishments upon the
Respondents on each occasion and, thus, the Respondents, therefore, could
not have improved their.stan·d e.ven if a further opportunity was given. [See G
Escorts Farms ltd., Previously known as Mis Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) ltd.
v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainita/, UP. and Ors., [2004] 4 SCC
281; Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kera/a, [2004] 6 SCC 311, A.
Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors., [2004] 7 SCC 112 and
Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman & Nicobar Islands v.
Munnu Barrick and Ors., [2005] 2 SCC 237. H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20051 2 S.C.R.

A. STATUS OF BADLI WORKERS
We have noticed hereinbefore the relevant provisions of the Regulations.
The status of a Badli cannot be better than a probationer. If the services of
the probationer can be terminated for not being able to complete the period
of probation satisfactorily, there is no reason as to why the same standard
B cannot be held to be applicable in the case of Badli worker.

What would be the legal requirements for discharging a probationer on
the ground of his unsatisfactory performance has recently been considered by
us in Municipal Committee, Sirsa v. Munshi Ram, JT (2005) 2 SC 117,
wherein it was held :
c
"16. From the above, it is clear assuming that there was some sort of
misconduct, as notice.A in the evidence of the witnesses of the
management in the cross-examination, the same could not be used as
evidence by the Labour Court or by the appellate court for coming
to the conclu5·on that an order of termination which is otherwise
D
simpliciter in nature is motivated by any consideration other than the
decision of the management as to the satisfactory nature of the
workman concerned."

It was further observed :
E " ......... Assuming that there was an incident of misconduct or
incompetency prior to his discharge from service, the same cannot be
ipso facto be termed as misconduct requiring an inquiry, it may be a
ground for the employer's assessment of the workman's efficiency
and efficacy to retain him in service, unless, of course, the workman
F is able to satisfy that the management for reasons other than efficiency
wanted to remove him from services by exercising its power of
discharge."

The Appellant watched the conduct of the Respondents for an year and
only on completion of the period during which the select list remained valid,
G terminated their services as having been found not satisfactory.

In Registrar, High Court of Gujarat and Anr. v. C.G. Sharma, [2005]
l SCC 132, this Court observed :

" ......... The order of termination is termination simpliciter and not
H punitive in nature and, therefore, no opportunity needs to be given to
K.S.R.T.C. v. S.G. KOTTURAPPA [SINHA . .I.] 535

the respondent herein. Since the overall performance of the respondent A
was found to be unsatisfactory by the High Court during the period
of probation, it was decided by the High Court that the services of the
respondent during the period of probation of the respondent be
terminated because of his unsuitability for the post. In this view of
the matter, order of termination simpliciter cannot be said to be B
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution. The law on
the point is crystallized that the probationer remains a probationer
unless he has been confirmed on the basis of the work evaluation.
Unless the relevant Rules under which the respondent was appointed
as a Civil Judge, there is no provision for automatic or deemed
confirmation and/or deemed appointment on regular establishment or C
post, and in that view of the matter, the contentions of the respondent
that the respondent's services were deemed to have been continued
on the expiry of the probation period, are misconceived."

CONCLUSION :
D
For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be
sustained which are set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

N.J. Appeals allowed.