judgement:
titions Nos.
7897 7901, 8077 86, 8115 34, 7969 78, 4591 4598 of 1983, 788 92, 1360, 2225, 2365 67 of 1982, 7924 52, 8049 50, 7963 68, 8087 92, 8093 97, 8137 69 5824, 5818, 5233, 4578, 4577, 4574, 4576, 8047 48 of 1983, 7490 92/82, 3560, 5625, 5830, 6071 75, 6083 90, 6098 6101, 6102 29, 6180 88, 7046 47, 7495, 7613 14 7622 26, 7656 60, 7663 68, 7670 82, 8003, 8005, 8006, 4583, 8434 40, 8427 33, 5356 64, 7618 21, 7655, 8391 93, 3326, 3939, 6133 79 of 1983, 9347, 7800 and 9803 of 1982.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).
WITH Civil Appeal No. 31 34 of 1981.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated the 18th December, 1980 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
21090 and 21339 of 1980.
743 AND Civil Appeals Nos.
1735 06 of 1981 Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated the 19th May, 1981 of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal Nos. 643 and 644 of 1980.
AND Special Leave Petition No. 2275 of 1982.
From the Proceedings dated 6th October, 1981 of the Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority Bangalore, in Subject No. 165 of 1981.
For the Appearing Parties: K. K. Venugopal, R. B. Datar & Ms. Madhu Mool Chandani, K. N. Bhatt, A. T. M. Sampath, P. N. Ramalingam, B.P. Singh, section section Javali, N. K Sharma, Harbans Lal, R. N. Poddar, N. section Das Bahl, V. G. Mehta, V. K. Verma, P. R. Mridul, Vineet Kumar, C. section Vaidyanathan, N. Nettar, B. R. L. Iyengar, P.R. Ramasesh, P. K. Pillai, R. P. Bhatt, Swaraj Kaushal, M. Veerappa and A. K. Sharma.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J.
Appellants and petitioners in this group of appeals and special leave petition and writ petitions are persons who have obtained or were desirous of obtaining temporary tourist permits valid for the whole of India styled as 'All India Tourist Permit '.
The chronology of events leading to the appeals and writ petitions may be briefly stated.
Sub sec.
(7) was inserted in Sec. 63 of the (Act for short) with effect from October 1, 1970 empowering State Transport Authority in each State, for the purpose of promoting tourism, to grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India, in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as the Central Government may, in respect of that State, specify in this behalf.
The Central Government specified that the State Transport Authority in each State may grant permit as 744 contemplated by Sec. 63 (7) not exceeding 50 in number.
Armed with this power, the State Transport Authority of Karnataka State in all granted 36 such permits.
There were thus 14 vacancies.
It appears that several persons applied for temporary all India tourist permits to the State Transport Authority of Karnataka State.
These applications for the permits were rejected and some of the applicants who were respondent Nos. 3 to 11 in the writ petition in the High Court and who are appellants in this Court preferred appeals to State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The appellate tribunal purporting to exercise power under Sec.
62 of the Act granted temporary all India tourist permits to them.
Some of the holders of regular permits granted under sec.
63 (7) of the Act filed writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka.
By a common Judgment the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, inter alia, on the ground that the grant of a permit under Sec. 63 (7) must be in accordance with the provisions of the various sections set out therein which does not include Sec. 62 under which alone temporary permit can be granted and therefore, grant of temporary permits for tourist vehicles of all India operation is not permissible.
Accordingly, a writ of certiorary was issued guashing and setting aside the decision of the State Transport Appellate Authority.
On the request of the present appellants, the High Court granted a certificate under article 134 A of the Constitution as in its view a substantial question of law of general importance, namely, whether a temporary permit can be granted in respect of a tourist vehicle for all India operation, does arise and further in its opinion the question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Hence some appeals by certificate.
Following the decision of the High Court, large number of appeals pending before the State Transport Appellate Authority were dismissed and the appellants whose appeals were dismissed have approached this Court under article 136 of the Constitution.
Further a large number of writ petitions have been filed under article 32 of the Constitution questioning the correctness of the decision of various transport authorities refusing to grant temporary all India tourist permits and praying for a writ of mandamus directing the State Transport Authority of various States to grant such permits.
A further prayer in some of the writ petitions is to the effect that that part of sub sec.
(7) of Sec. 63 which enables the Central Government to prescribe a quota for each State in resp ct of all India tourist permits, is violative of the Constitution and must be declared unconstitutional.
745 As common questions have been raised in the appeals, special leave petitions and the writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The narrow and the only question that was canvassed before us is: whether there is power in any of the Transport Authorities as enumerated in Sec.
44 of the Act to grant temporary all India tourist permits ? In other words, whether the power conferred by Sec.
62 of the Act enabling the Regional Transport Authority without following the procedure laid down in Sec.
57, to grant temporary permit as therein envisaged would comprehend the power to grant temporary all India tourist permits ? We must frankly confess that this neat question of law is none too easy of answer and much can be said in support of rival contentions.
At the outset, let it be made distinctly clear that there is no nomenclature as regular or permanent all India tourist permit.
63 (7) has specified a permit that can be granted by the State Transport Authority of any State, subject to the quota fixed by the Central Government valid for the whole or any part of India.
In other words, such a permit would enable the permit holder to undertake an all India operation which for brevity 's sake may be described as all India tourist permit.
63 (7) speaks of such permit which may be granted after complying with the various sections of the Act therein set out.
Such permits when granted may be styled as regular all India tourist permit in contradistinction to what the appellants and the petitioners seek as temporary all India tourist permit.
A brief resume of the relevant provisions of the Act may shed light on the controversy raised before us.
Expression 'contract carriage ' is defined in Sec. 2 (3) to mean a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum etc. 'Stage carriage ' is defined in Sec. 2 (29) to mean a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey.
Expression 'tourist vehicle ' is defined in Sec.
2(29 A) to Mean a contract carriage constructed or adapted and equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
The defini 746 tion of 'tourist vehicle ' was introduced by Amending Act 56 of 1969 by which Sec. 63 (7) was also introduced.
Chapter IV bears the heading 'Control of Transport Vehicles '.
42 prohibits owner of a transport vehicle to use the same in the public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under the relevant provisions of the Act.
It may be recalled that transport vehicle includes goods vehicle as well as passenger vehicle.
Thus no passenger vehicles can be used in any public place without a permit.
44 requires the State Government to constitute various transport authorities in each State such as State Transport Authority, to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub sec.
(3) as also Regional Transport Authority to exercise and discharge throughout such areas referred to as regions, as may be specified in the notification, powers and functions conferred on such authority.
It would appear that a State Transport Authority is to be constituted for the whole State.
The State is to be divided into various regions and a Regional Transport Authority has to be constituted for one or more of such regions.
The powers and functions of the State Transport Authority are generally stated in sub sec.
(3) which include; (a) the duty to co ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authority, if any, of the State, (b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such authority and, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions, (c) to settle the disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities, and (d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed.
45 makes general provisions as to applications for permits.
Sub sec.
(2) of Sec.
45 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub sec.
(1), the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that in the case of any vehicle or vehicles proposed to be used in two or more regions Lying in DIFFERENT States, the application under Sec.
45 (1) shall be made to the State Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business.
46 specifies the contents of an application for a stage carriage permit.
49 prescribes the requirements of an application for a contract carriage permit.
One of the requirements is to specify the area for which the permit is required.
Primarily an application for a contract carriage has to be made to Regional Transport Authority as transpires from Secs.
50 and 51.
It is necessary to notice this fact because an all India tourist permit is none the less a contract carriage permit with 747 this difference that its area of operation is the whole of India.
It would further transpire from a combined reading of Secs.
49, 50 and 51 that an application for a contract carriage permit with its operational jurisdiction intra State has to be made to the Regional Transport Authority and if inter State operation is contemplated, the application has to be made to the State Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business as contemplated by Sec.
45 (2).
This becomes further manifest from the provisions of Sec. 63.
(1) which provides that except as otherwise provided, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any region, unless the permit has been counter signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless counter signed by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned.
Sub sec.
(6) of Sec.
63 starts with a non obstante clause and it provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub sec.
but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the Regional Transport Authority of any one region may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit in relation to a public service vehicle for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express of implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract.
11 Then comes sub sec.
(7) of Sec. 63 which enables the State Transport Authority to grant regular all India tourist permit.
It may be extracted: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, any State Transport Authority may, for the purpose or promoting tourism, grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India, in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as the Central Government may, in respect of that State, specify in this behalf, and the provisions of Sections 49, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 59 A, 60, 61 and 64 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such permits.
" There is a proviso to the section which is immaterial for the present purpose.
Sub sec.
(7) of Sec. 63 which confers power on a State transport Authority to grant regular all India tourist permit makes 748 it obligatory that while granting such permits or in order to grant such permit or with a view to obtain such permit the applicant as well as the concerned authority shall have to act in accordance with Secs.
49, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 59 A, 60, 61 and 64 as far as may, apply in relation to such permits.
A reference to Sec.
62 at this stage is necessary because the State Transport Appellate Authority reversed the decision of the Regional Transport Authority and directed grant of temporary all India tourist permit under the erroneous understanding that such temporary permits can be granted under Sec.
reads as under: "62.
Temporary permits (1) A Regional Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 57, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily (a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or (b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or (c) to meet a particular temporary need, or (d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit, any may attach to any such permit any condition it thinks fit: Provided that a temporary permit under this section shall, in no case, be granted in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant of a new permit under Section 46 or Section 54 during the pendency of the application: Provided further that a temporary permit under this section shall, in no case, be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such application for renewal.
749 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), a temporary permit may be granted there under in respect of any route or area where (i) no permit could be issued under Section 48 or Section 51 or Section 54 in respect of that route or area by reason of an order of a court or, other competent authority restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the period for which the issue of the permit has been so restrained; or (ii) as a result of the suspension by a court or other competent authority of the permit of any vehicle in respect of that route or area, there is no trans port vehicle of the same class with a valid permit, in respect of that route or area, or there is no adequate number of such vehicles in respect of that route or area, for a period not exceeding the period of such suspension.: Provided that the number of transport vehicles in respect of which the temporary permit is so granted shall not exceed the number of vehicles in respect of which the issue of a permit has been restrained or as the case may be, the permit has been suspended.
" Translating these various provisions into functional implementation, an applicant who desires to obtain a permit for a tourist vehicle has to make an application under Sec. 63 (7).
Such an application has to be processed as required by Sec. 49 which would immediately imprint the application as an application for a contract carriage permit with this difference that it shall have an all India operation.
If it is an application simpliciter for a contract carriage permit, Sec.
50 would necessitate the application being made to Regional Transport Authority, but if the contract carriage permit is to be valid for an inter State operation, obviously, the application will have to be made to State Transport Authority Sec.
63 (7) also requires that an application for all India tourist permit has to be made to State Transport Authority.
Therefore, even though an application for contract carriage permit has ordinarily to be made to Regional Transport Authority, if all India operation is desired in respect 750 of a tourist vehicle, the same has to be made to the State Transport Authority.
This application has to be processed according to the procedure prescribed in Sec.
A contract carriage permit other than the one having an all India operation must specify the area or the route or routes on which the permit holder can ply the vehicle under the authority of contract carriage permit as required by Sec.
Permit contemplated by Sec. 63 (7) can be granted and shall be effective without renewal for such period, not less than 3 years and not more than 5 years, as the authority granting the permit may specify.
(See Sec. 58).
In view of the power conferred by Sec. 60, the transport authority which granted the permit will have the power to cancel or suspend the same, if one or more of the conditions prescribed in Sec.
60 are satisfied.
Sec. 63 (7) for the first time conferred power on the State Transport Authority in a State to grant a permit which will enable the permit holder to use the tourist vehicle for all India operation without complying with sub sec.
(1) of Sec. 63 which required countersignature of tho State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority as the case may be of State or region other than the one by which the permit is granted, to undertake an operation in the area within the jurisdiction of the counter signing State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority as the case may be.
Therefore, unquestionably even though the permit contemplated by Sec. 63 (7) has a larger operational area, it is none the less a contract carriage permit, and Sec. 63 (7) mandated that the authority granting such permit will have to comply with all the sections except Sec. 62 which have to be complied with for obtaining a contract carriage permit contemplated by Sec.
Why was Sec.
62 omitted from Sec. 63 (7) is the root question ? The High Court in this connection observed that "since subsection (6) of Sec. 63 has provided for grant of special permits for all India operation of contract carriages, it is reasonable to infer that the omission to mention Sec.
62 in the latter part of sub sec.
(7) of Sec. 63 was deliberate and that the legislature did not intend grant of temporary permits for tourist vehicles for all India operation.
" This view is assailed on behalf of the appellants and the writ petitioners.
It was contended that as an elaborate procedure is prescribed for grant of stage carriage permit or contract carriage permit and that it being a prolix and time consuming process, Sec.
62 keeping in 751 view the urgent or emergent need to provide transport facilities to travelling public, conferred power on Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit to meet a particular temporary need or for purposes of seasonal business or pending decision of an application for the renewal of a permit.
It was urged that if either a stage carriage or contract carriage permit can be granted by a Regional Transport Authority to meet a particular temporary need or pending decision of an application for the renewal of a permit, the Regional Transport Authority can as well grant temporary all India tourist permit for the self same reasons.
There are two fallacies in the submissions on behalf of the appellants and the writ petitioners.
62 confers power on the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit.
A Regional Transport Authority is set up for a region.
The jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority extends over a region which is usually a small part of the State because for the purposes of the Act State has to be divided into regions.
Power to grant temporary permit is conferred on Regional Transport Authority, amongst others, meet a particular temporary need.
Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over a comparatively small area may be able to gauge, notice or appreciate a particular temporary need for which a temporary permit can be granted for a period not exceeding 4 months without following the procedure prescribed.
in Sec.
The same power can be enjoyed pending the renewal of an already granted permit.
By its very nature.
62 caters to a situation where permits to operate vehicles may be granted for a short period to meet some temporary or emergency requirement or where time is likely to be spent in processing an application for renewal of a permit and in the interregnum the travelling public may not be put to inconvenience on account of non availability of vehicles with permits.
The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur).(1) An authority having jurisdiction over a comparatively small area is favourably placed to notice a situation as contemplated by Sec.
Therefore, the power is conferred on Regional Transport Authority and not the State Transport Authority to grant temporary permit in the circumstances set out in Sec.
62, because State Transport Authority has jurisdiction over the whole State, and the State Transport Authority exercising the power under Sec. 63 (7) will have to have an all India perspective.
752 Therefore, the statute did not confer such power on State.
Transport Authority because by its very nature the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over a comparatively smaller area would be better equipped to appreciate and deal with the needs of the travelling public of a temporary character or pending the renewal of a permit.
There is intrinsic evidence in the language of Sec. 62 that it was meant to be used by Regional Transport Authority for dealing with a situation within its small area.
If Regional Transport Authority is not competent to grant regular all India tourist permit, no canon of construction would permit the Court to clothe him with power to grant temporary all India tourist permit.
Even if the dictum that the power to grant final relief inheres the power to grant interim relief can be extended to executive authority, yet when the Regional Transport Authority has no power to grant regular all India tourist permit, it would be impossible to hold that such authority has none the less the power to grant temporary all India tourist permit.
Therefore, the very language of Sec. 62 on which the High Court substantially relied in support of its conclusion would be sufficient to negative the contention canvased on behalf of the appellants and the petitioners.
It was, however, urged that Sec. 44 (3) contemplates a situation where a State Transport Authority has to perform the duties of Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, the expression 'Regional Transport Authority ' in Sec.
62 would either comprehend State Transport Authority or would not atleast exclude the power conferred on the lower authority to be enjoyed by the higher authority.
44 (3) would not render any help in this behalf because it merely provides that a State Transport Authority can perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority or where, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions.
None of these conditions under which a State Transport Authority can perform the functions and discharge the duties of a Regional Transport Authority are satisfied, and there fore, it is difficult to accept the submission that the expression 'Regional Transport Authority ' used in Sec.
62 will comprehend State Trans port Authority.
It is equally not possible to accept the submission that when a power is conferred on a lower authority that power can always be enjoyed by the authority higher in the hierarchy in relation to the lower authority.
There is no express provision in the statute which provides that the Stats Transport Authority can always and 753 without any fetter enjoy the power of the Regional Transport Authority and in the absence of such provision it is difficult to read merely on the basis of vertical hierarchy wherever the lower authority is mentioned in the statute, the higher authority be included therein.
Viewed from this angle, we do not propose to undertake the exercise of ascertaining whether State Transport Authority can be said to be the higher authority in relation to Regional Transport Authority.
It was urged that temporary permit can be granted pending decision of an application for a renewal of a permit; and that as in the State of Karnataka out of a quota of 50 permits granted by the Central Government under Sec. 63 (7), only 36 have been issued, the State Transport Authority can grant temporary permit for the vacancies till regular all India tourist permits are granted.
Support was sought to be drawn for the submission from cl.
(d) of sub sec.
(1) of Sec. 62 which provides that temporary permit can be granted pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit.
The section does not provide for grant of temporary permits pending grant of a regular permit.
On the contrary the first proviso to Sec.
62 (1) makes what is implicit in the cl.
(d) explicit by providing that a temporary permit under Sec.
62 shall, in no case, be granted in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant of a new permit under Section 46 or Sec.
54 during the pendency of the application.
It may be recalled that Sec.
46 provides for an application for a stage carriage permit and Sec.
54 provides for an application for public carriers permit.
Therefore, in no case a temporary permit can be granted under the section pending grant of or renewal or a contract carriage permit.
Sub sec (2) of Sec.
62, however, carves out an exception where a temporary contract carriage permit can be granted in respect of any route or area where no permit could be issued by reason of an order of the court or, other competent authority restraining the issue of the same.
That is not the case here.
Therefore, there is no power to grant a temporary contract carriage permit and ipso facto the temporary all India tourist permit under Sec.
62 and the contention stands negatived by the very language of Sec.
62 Accordingly there is no merit in the submission.
A few days after the arguments were concluded and the matter stood over for Judgment, Mr. K. N. Bhatt, learned counsel for some of the petitioners submitted a written brief in which it was stated that the in its application to the State of 754 Karnataka was amended by the Motor Vehicles (Mysore Amendment Act, 1973 (Karnataka Act No. 25 of 1975) which, after receiving the assent of the President came into force on January 12, 1974, has introduced the following sentence at the end of sub sec.
(2) of Sec. 45.
The sentence reads as under: "When such a notification is issued, reference to the Regional Transport Authority in Sections 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63 and 68 shall, in respect of the application for permit for using a vehicle in two or more regions Lying in different States, be construed as reference also to the State Transport Authority.
" By the same Amending Act sub sec.
(2A) has been added in Sec.
45 which reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that in the case of any vehicle or vehicles proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in the State, the application under that sub section shall be made to the State Transport Authority.
When such a notication is issued, reference to the Regional Transport Authority in sections 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58.
62, 63 and 68F shall in respect of applications for permit for using a vehicle in two or more regions lying in the State, be construed as reference also to the State Trans port Authority.
" Relying on these amendments it was urged that as far as the State of Karnataka is concerned on the issue of a notification under sub sec (2A) of Sec 45 the expression 'Regional Transport Authority ' in Sec.
62 will also comprehend State Transport Authority and therefore, the submission of the appellants and the petitioners cannot be negatived on the ground that only Regional Transport Authority is empowered to issue temporary permits.
Though no notification as required under sub sec.
(2A) of Sec.
45 was brought to our notice we are prepared to proceed on the assumption that such a notification has been issued.
But even if in the application of the to the State of Karnataka, Sec. 62 would also enable State Transport Authority to issue temporary permit, it can only be done in the circumstances and eventualities mentioned in that.
755 section.
It will be presently pointed out that power to grant temporary permit under Sec.
62 in the circumstances and eventualities therein mentioned would not comprehend the power to grant temporary all India tourist permit because none of the conditions under which the same can be granted would be attracted and State Transport Authority of a State will have no material for satisfaction of one or the other condition set out in Sec.
62 which would enable it to grant such a permit.
Therefore, this amendment would hardly make any difference in the outcome of the matter.
It was urged that the High Court was in error in attaching importance to the omission of Sec. 62 from array of sections subject to which an application for an all India tourist permit has to be processed which according to the High Court clearly manifests the legislative intention that there was no question of granting under any circumstances temporary all India tourist permit.
It was contended that omission of Sec.
62 is quite logical because if it was placed amongst the array of sections subject to which applications for all India tourist permit have to be processed, it would have become incongruous.
Proceeding along this line it was submitted that Sec. 63 (7) provides that 'such permit ' as contemplated by Sec. 63 (7) will be granted in accordance with the various provisions set out therein, the expression 'such permit ' can only mean regular or all India tourist permit and the temporary all India tourist permit was not to be catered to by Sec. 63 (7) but by Sec. 62 and therefore it was rightly omitted from the array of sections set out in sec.
63 (7).
If one were to conclude from the mere omission of Sec. 62 from amongst the array of sections subject to which an application for permit under sec.
63 (7) will have to be processed that no temporary all India tourist permit can be granted, there would have been some force in the submission on behalf of the appellants and the writ petitioners.
But we would presently point that the whole concept of granting temporary all India tourist permit is foreign to the concept of all India tourist permit and that this conclusion gets reinforced by the omission of Sec. 62 from the array of various sections subject to to which a permit under Sec.
63 (7) can be granted.
Sub section (7) was introduced in Sec. 63 in 1970.
The object underlying the introduction of sub sec.
(7) becomes manifest from the language used therein.
Till the introduction of sub sec.
(7), the situation was that the Regional Transport Authority can grant contract carriage permit valid for the area under its jurisdiction or when counter signed by the State Transport Authority of the other State 756 then the vehicle can be operated in that other State.
Now with a view to promoting tourism, it was decided to clothe State Transport Authority with power to issue a permit which without the necessity of obtaining counter signature of other Transport Authority of other State valid for operating the vehicle throughout the length and breadth of the country.
With a view to providing uninterrupted flow of tourist traffic, thereby expanding tourist facilities which would promote tourism in the country, a contract carriage permit with all India operation was conceived and power was conferred on the State Transport Authority subject to the quota prescribed by the Central Government for each State to grant such permit.
Every State had the prescribed quota and we were informed that at present each State has a quota of 50 permits.
Within the quota, State Transport Authority in each State can grant a contract carriage permit in respect of a tourist vehicle for all India operation.
A contract carriage permit can as well be granted under Sec.
51 in respect of a vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum etc.
Any ordinary vehicle meeting the requirements of law can be operated under a contract carriage permit granted under Sec.
But when it comes to granting of a contract carriage permit available for all India operation, it has to be in respect of a tourist vehicle.
Tourist vehicle has been defined to mean a contract carriage constructed or adapted and equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications as the State Government, may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
We were told that some special arrangements for comfortable journey over long distances has to be provided in a tourist vehicle.
What is the distinction ? An all India tourist permit is none the less a contract carriage permit but while contract carriage permit can be granted for any vehicle not required to be specially adapted for the purpose, a contract carriage permit for all India operation as envisaged by Sec. 63 (7) can only be granted in respect of tourist vehicle, and it appears that it requires a substantial financial investment for adapting a vehicle as a tourist vehicle.
This intrinsic evidence shows that such huge or heavy outlay cannot be imposed on an applicant by giving him temporary all India tourist permit which cannot be granted for a period extending 4 months.
If Sec.
62 were to be a proviso to Sec. 63 (7) and therefore, one can conceive of granting a temporary all India tourist permit for meeting a particular temporary need, it is difficult to envisage a particular temporary need of an all India variant which can be 757 noticed by State Transport Authority of one State and such authority can proceed side tracking all relevant provisions to grant temporary all India tourist permit.
Can there conceivably be a particular temporary need felt throughout India at the same time ? If the answer is in the affirmative, all the States can grant temporary permits.
There will be more vehicles and less travellers.
Further a State Transport Authority of one State may believe that there exists a particular temporary need but the view of the other State Transport Authority can be exactly to the contrary, and State Transport Authority.
Of one State can open the flood gates of temporary permits permitting tourist vehicles to invade other States.
It may be that a particular temporary need may arise in one State but that can be catered to by the Regional Transport Authority of the region or the State Transport Authority of the State giving direction to Regional Transport Authority to grant contract carriage permit under Sec. 51.
It is not necessary to have recourse to Sec. 63 (7) in such a situation, and if one State cannot cater to the particular all India need, other States having their own quota can fill in the bill.
Having thus examined the whole concept of all India tourist permit, the question of granting of a tourist permit to cater to a particular temporary need appears to be foreign to the very concept of all India tourist permit.
For this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court was perfectly justified in reaching the E conclusion that there is no power to grant temporary all India tourist permit and the High Court rightly set aside the decision of the State Transport Appellate Authority.
No case is therefore, made out for interfering with the same.
Accordingly all these appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions fail and each of which is dismissed with costs where appearance has been entered into on the other side.
All interim orders are vacated.
H.L.C. Appeals and petitions dismissed.

dataset_name: IN-Abs

summary/full:
In order to promote tourism, the (Act for short) was amended in 1970 and sub sec.
(7) was inserted in section 63 empowering the State Transport Authority in each state to grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as may be specified by the Central Government.
The Central Government specified that every State Transport Authority may grant such permit not exceeding 50 in number.
The State Transport Authority of Karnataka issued 36 such permits and there were 14 vacancies.
Several persons applied for temporary all India tourist permits to the State Transport Authority.
The State Transport Authority rejected the applications.
On appeal the State Transport Appellate Tribunal purporting to exercise power under section 62 of the Act granted temporary all India tourist permits.
On writ petitions filed by some of the holders of regular permits under section 63(7) the High Court quashed and set aside the decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The appellants and the petitioners who had obtained or were desirous of obtaining temporary all India tourist permits challenged the correctness of the decision of the High Court.
The appellants urged: (1) that the Regional Transport Authority can grant temporary all India tourist permits for the reasons mentioned in sec.
62; (2) that the State Transport Authority of Karnataka can grant temporary permits for the vacancies till regular all India tourist permits were granted; (3) that in view of the provisions of sec.
44(3), the expression Regional Transport Authority would either comprehend State Transport Authority or would not at least exclude the power conferred on the lower authority to be enjoyed by the higher authority; (4) that as far as the State of Karnataka was concerned, on the issue of notification under sub sec.
(2A) of sec.
45 the expression 'Regional Transport Authority ' in sec.
62 will also comprehend State Transport Authority.
and, (S) that the expression 'such permit ' in sec.
63(7) could only mean regular or all India tourist permit and the temporary all India tourist permit was not to be catered to by sec.
63(7) but by sec.
62 and therefore sec.
62 was rightly omitted from the array of sections set out in sec.
63(7).
Dismissing the appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions, 741 ^ HELD: There is no power to grant temporary all India tourist permit under sec.
[757 E] An Authority having jurisdiction over a comparatively small area is favourably placed to notice a situation as contemplated by sec.
Therefore, sec.
62 confers power on the Regional Transport Authority, the jurisdiction of which extends over a region which ii usually a small part of the State to grant temporary permits to operate vehicles for a short period to meet some temporary or emergency requirement or pending the renewal of an already granted permit.
There is intrinsic evidence in the language of sec.
62 that this power was meant to be used by Regional Transport Authority for dealing with a situation within its small area.
If Regional Transport Authority is not competent to grant regular all India tourist permit, no canon of construction would permit the Court to clothe him with power to grant temporary all India tourist permit.
[752 A D] The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 786 referred to.
Section 62(1)(d) does not provide for grant of temporary permits pending grant of a regular permit.
On the contrary the first proviso to Sec.
62(1) makes what is implicit in cl.
(d) explicit by providing that a temporary permit under sec.
62 shall, in no case, be granted in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant of a new permit under sec.
46 or sec.
54 during the pendency of the application.
It may be recalled that sec.
46 provides for an application for a stage carriage and sec.
54 provides for an application for public carrier 's permit.
Therefore, in no case a temporary permit can be granted under the section pending grant of or renewal of a contract carriage permit.
Sub sec.
(2) of sec.
62, however, carves out an exception where a temporary contract carriage permit can be granted in respect of any route or area where no permit could be issued by reason of an order of the court or, other competent authority restraining the issue of the same.
That is not the case here.
Therefore, there is no power to grant a temporary contract carriage permit and ipso facto the temporary all India tourist permit under sec.
[753 D G] Sec.
44(3) merely provides that a State Transport Authority can perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority or where, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions.
In the instant case none of these conditions under which a State Transport Authority can perform the functions and discharge the duties of a Regional Transport Authority are satisfied, and therefore, it is difficult to accept tho submission that the expression 'Regional Transport Authority ' used in sec.
62 will comprehend State Transport Authority.
Even if in its application, the Act with its local amendment to the State of Karnataka sec.
62 would enable the State Transport Authority to issue a temporary permit this would hardly make any difference because the power to grant temporary permit under sec.
62 in the circumstances and eventualities therein mentioned would not comprehend 742 the power to grant temporary all India tourist permit because none of the conditions under which the same can be granted would be attracted and the State Transport Authority will have no material for satisfaction of one or the other conditions set out in Sec. 62 which would enable it to grant such a permit.
There is no express provision in the Act which provides that the State Transport Authority can always and without any fetter enjoy the power of the Regional Transport Authority and in the absence of such provision it is difficult to read merely on the basis of vertical hierarchy wherever the lower authority is mentioned in the statue, the higher authority be included therein.
[752 E H; 753 A B] The whole concept of granting temporary all India tourist permit is foreign to the concept of all India tourist permit.
An all India touris permit is none the less a contract carriage permit but while contract carriage permit can be granted for any vehicle not required to be specially adopted for the purpose, a contract carriage permit for all India operation as envisaged by sec.
63(7) can only be granted in respect of tourist vehicle, and it appears that it requires a substantial financial investment for adapting a vehicle as a tourist vehicle.
This intrinsic evidence shows that such huge or heavy outlay cannot be imposed on an applicant by giving him temporary all India tourist permit which can if at all be granted for a period extending 4 months [756 E G] If sec.
62 were to be a proviso to sec.
63(7) and therefore, one can conceive of granting a temporary all India tourist permit for meeting a particular temporary need, it is difficult to envisage a particular need of an all India variant which can be noticed by State Transport Authority of one State and such authority can proceed side tracking all relevant provisions to grant temporary all India tourist permit.
[756 H; 757 A]


judgement:
Civil Appeal No. 2659 of 1980 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 15th January, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 40 of 1980.
801 Jitendra Sharma for the Appellant, G.L. Sanghi and D.N. Mishra for the Respondent.
The Central Government, the appropriate Government within the meaning of section 2 (a) of the , referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi: "Whether the action of the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi in dismissing Shri S.K. Verma, Development officer in Jullunder Branch of the Corporation, with effect from February 8,1969 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?" The Life Insurance Corporation promptly raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the reference on the ground that Shri S K. Verma was not a workman.
There appears to be three preliminary objections which have became quite the fashion to be raised by all employers, particularly public sector corporations, whenever an industrial dispute is referred to a tribunal for adjudication.
One objection is that there is no industry, a second that there is no industrial dispute and the third that the workman is no workman.
It is a pity that when the Central Government, in all solemnity, refers an industrial dispute for adjudication, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality of the State instead of welcoming a decision by the Tribunal on merits so as to absolve itself of any charge of being a bad employer or of victimisation etc.
should attempt to evade decision on merits by raising such objections and never thereby satisfied, carry the matter often times to the High Court and to the Supreme Court, wasting public time and money.
We expect public sector corporations to be model employers and model litigants.
We do not expect them to attempt to avoid adjudication or to indulge in luxurious litigation and drag: workmen from court to court merely to vindicate, not justice, but some rigid technical stand taken up by them.
We hope that public sector corporation will henceforth refrain from raising needless objections, fighting needless litigations and adopting needless postures.
The Industrial Tribunal upheld the preliminary objection and ruled that Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation of India are not workmen within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the 802 Industrial Dispute, Act.
The reference was therefore held to be incompetent.
Writ Petition filed by S.K. Verma was dismissed in limine by the Delhi High Court.
S.K. Verma has come before us under article 136 of the Constitution.
'Workman ' was originally defined by section 2(s) of the as meaning "any person employed (including an apprentice) in any industry to do any skilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward and includes, for the purpose of any proceedings under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a workman discharged during that dispute but .
does not include any person employed in the naval, military or air service of the Crown.
" The definition under went a substantial amendment in 1956 and this is how it stands now: "Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person (i) Who is subject to the , or the or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934; or (ii) Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per 803 mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
The words ' any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work ' are not intended to limit or narrow the amplitude of the definition of workman '; on the other hand they indicate and emphasise the broad sweep of the definition which is designed to cover all manner of persons employed in an industry, irrespective of whether they are engaged in skilled work or unskilled work, manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work.
Quite obviously the broad intention is to take in the entire 'labour force ' and exclude the 'managerial force '.
That of course, is as it should be.
It is trite to say that is a legislation intended to bring about peace and harmony between labour and management in all industry and for that purpose, it makes provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes.
It is, therefore, necessary to interpret the definitions of 'industry ', 'workman, ' 'industrial dispute ', etc.
so as not to whittle down, but to advance the object of the Act.
Disputes between the forces of labour and management are not to be excluded from the operation of the Act E by giving narrow and restricted meanings to expressions in the Act.
The Parliament could never be credited with the intention of keeping out of the purview of the legislation small bands of employees who, though not on the managerial side of the establishment, are yet to be denied the ordinary rights of the forces of labour for no apparent reason at all.
In Workmen of Indian Standards Institution vs Management of Indian Standards Institution.(1) this Court had occasion to point out: ". .
It is necessary to remember that the is a legislation intended to bring about peace and harmony between management and labour in an 'industry ' so that production does not suffer and at the same time, labour is not exploited and discontended and, therefore, the tests must be so applied as to give the widest possible connotation to the term 'industry '.
804 Whenever a question arises whether a particular concern is an 'industry ' the approach must be broad and liberal and not rigid or doctrinaire.
We cannot forget that it is a social welfare legislation we are interpreting and we must place such an interpretation as would advance the object and purpose of the legislation and give full meaning and effect to it in the achievement of its avowed social objective.
" So we adopt a pragmatic and a pedantic approach and we proceed, in considering the question whether development officers in the Life Insurance Corporation are workmen, to first consider the broad question on which side of the line they fall, labour or management, and then to consider whether there are any good reasons for moving them over from one side to the other.
One does not have to be carried away by the appellation 'development officer ' as the Industrial Tribunal appears to have been.
After all, what is in a name ? Notwithstanding the glorified designation, we must look to the nature of his duties to discover what precisely a development officer is? The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations classifies the staff into four categories as follows: "Class I officers Class II Development officers Class III Supervisory and Clerical Staff Class IV Subordinate Staff.
" It is seen that development officers while classified separately from 'Supervisory and Clerical Staff ' are also classified separately from 'officers '.
Schedule I of the Staff Regulations shows the appointing and disciplinary authorities against the various posts.
Tn the case of even the lowest posts of Class I, it is the Zonal Manager that is the appointing and disciplinary authority, while in the case of Development officers.
It is the Divisional Manager (that is, the officer next below in rank to Zonal Manager) that is the appointing and disciplinary authority.
Even in the case of Superintendents of Class III.
it is the Zonal Manager that is the appointing and disciplinary authority.
Development officers and employees of 805 Class III and Class IV other than Superintendents are placed on par and in their case, it is the Divisional Manager that is the appointing and disciplinary authority.
Schedule II gives the pay scales of the employees of the Corporation.
The scale of pay of the lowest paid class I officer is Rs. 530 40 1050.
The scale of pay of a Superintendent in class IlI is Rs. 330 25 680 30 740.
The scale of pay of development officer Grade I is RS.
230 15 320 20 360 EB 20 400 25 550 EB 30 760.
The scale of pay of a development officer Grade II is Rs. 170 10 220.
The scale of pay as well as the authorities competent to appoint and take disciplinary action indicate that the appellation 'development officer ' is no more than a glorified designation.
Development officers are separated from 'officers ' strictly so called and are generally placed on a par with subordinate and clerical staff.
Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation, told us that development officers are also entitled to be paid a certain commission in addition to the salary and that in the case of some development officers, quite fantastic sums have been paid to them by way of commission.
It may be so.
A few of the development officers may have been very fortunate in that the agents working within their jurisdiction had done excellent business and that entitled them to earn a good commission.
But we are told there are more than six thousand development officers and nothing has been said about the average commission earned by them or the commission earned by the present petitioner himself.
The nature of the duties of 'development officers ' are to be gathered from the letter of appointment issued to the petitioner.
We have set out below some of the more important terms of employment: "3.
Whole Time Employment You shall devote your full time and energy to a organise the Life Insurance business of the Corporation.
You shall not be a member of any political organisation and stand for election as a candidate to any of the Elective Bodies such as Panchayats, Municipalities, District Local Boards, University Senate or other similar bodies, Legislative Assemblies or Parliament or as a 806 Director of any of the Joint Stock Companies or Banking Institutions (including Corporative Banks except Corporation 's Staff Co operative Credit Societies).
Headquarters & Area: Your Headquarters will be at Jullunder City and the area in which you will confine your operations is stated hereinbelow: Jullunder City, Cantt & Thana Sadar on non exclusive basis: The Corporation may in its sole discretion curtail or enlarge the area of your operations or may appoint one or more other Field officers in the area allotted to you.
Transfer; You will be liable to transferred to any place in India.
From the date of your transfer you will not receive credit of the business canvassed by agents introduced by you or allotted to you as mentioned hereinafter.
Subject to such conditions as may be stipulated you will receive credit of business convassed by the aforesaid agents before the date of your transfer.
Duties & obligations: Your duties are mainly to organise and develop the business of the Corporation in the area allotted to you, and for that purpose to recruit active and reliable agents drawn from different communities and walks of life on such terms as may be stipulated by the Corporation from time to time and to train them up both canvassing new business and for rendering such post sale services as the policy holders may be in need of.
In addition to this, the existing agents who may be allotted to you hereafter should be well enthused and assisted by you.
You will, whenever called upon to do so, assist the Branch Manager or the Assistant Branch Manager in the investigation of claims.
We are enclosing herewith for your information and study a draft letter which will be issued by the Corpora 807 tion to new agents who may be selected by you.
You should also study the leaflet entitled "Hints to Agents" referred to therein, a copy of which is also enclosed herewith.
The Corporation has issued a Manual for Agents and you should make it a point to study the Manual carefully.
After an agent has continuously worked for the Corporation for a period of S years and over and the Branch Manager feels he is no more in need of the services of a Field officer he may be treated as a Direct Agent even if he has been recruited and trained by you.
Tours: If you are required by your Branch to undertake tours, you should chalk out a programme of the same and get it approved by your Branch Manager two months in advance.
When you proceed on tour, you should adhere to the tour programme as far as possible, and if any change becomes necessary you should advise about it to the Branch Manager, stating the reasons for the change in the tour programme.
The main object of the tours shall be to procure New Business to activise the existing agents, to appoint new agents where such appointments are necessary and to tap the potentiality of the area.
You will also contact the policy holders who have allowed their policies to lapse and help them to revive their policies.
You should see that the average cost of the tour does not work out to more than Rs. 2 per thousand sum assured of completed business.
The travelling expenses will be paid to you in accordance with the Rules of the Corporation framed from to time governing the payment of such allowances.
You will be intimated the current rules in this behalf Separately.
Immediately on completion of a tour and within a period not exceeding three days you will submit your 808 report, in the prescribed manner, with the relevant statements and the will of expenses to the Branch office. 8.
Advances Deposits: In respect of business procured by you during the tour you should see that advance deposits, at least equal to full instalment of first premiums, are collected from the proponents and that all such amounts are remitted to the Branch office immediately by M o., or if there is a Corporation 's collection Account in the town with any Bank, you should deposit the amounts immediately to the credit of the Corporation, giving full details to the Bank regarding the manner in which these amounts are to be credited.
If you collect any amount as deposit towards the first premium you should always issue receipts there for in prescribed form to the parties concerned.
If you permit any of your agents either requited by you or allotted to you to conduct the medical examination of a proponent without first realising an advance deposit and if such a proposal does not result in a policy the medical fees unnecessarily incurred will be debited to your account.
Record of Daily Work: You are required to make daily entries in the prescribed form which shall give a complete record as well as the results of your daily business calls.
This record must be presented to the Assistant Branch Manager (Administration) or the Branch Manager or to the Assistant Branch Manager (Development) for inspection at least once a week or at more frequent intervals, if called upon to do so.
When you are on tour you will make the entries in the Daily Record and on your return to the headquarters you will submit such record for inspection as stated above.
If your headquarters are not the same as the Branch office headquarters, you will submit the Daily Records 809 in such manner as you may be asked to by the Branch Manager.
You are also requested to fill in your Plan Book in consultation with your Branch Manager or Assistant Branch Manager (Development) and see that the targets of work you set for yourself therein are reached.
Collection of Premiums: Unless you are expressly authorised by the Corporation, you have no authority to collect premiums save the deposits towards the first premium as stated hereinabove.
Targets: You are required as outlined in your Plan Book: (a) to secure through agents recruited by you and allotted to you a minimum life business of Rs. 5 lacs yielding first year 's schedule premium income of not less than Rs. 30,000 through at least 100 policies: (b) to recruit and train 25 new agents; (c) to supervise and motivate the agents allotted to you if any and see that the average output of these agents allotted to you is increased progressively from year to year and, (d) to open 6 new centers for development.
We hope you will be able to exceed these targets as your actual categorisation to be made after the expiry of probationary period will depend upon the fulfilment of these targets and your record of post sales service rendered to the Corporation 's policy holders in the area allotted to you.
On the basis of the targets outlined in your Plan Book and your achievements in terms of new business, the recruitment and training of agents and motivating old 810 agents to increased activity, the Corporation reserves the right to review the results of your efforts any time and to take such action as may be called for in the circumstances.
General: You have no authority to accept risks or to bind the Corporation in any way.
You are not permitted to advance premiums on behalf of the policy holders or to have policies assigned to you or to any member of your family (i. e. wife, parents and children) by policy holders who are not related to you.
You are strictly forbidden to have any financial dealings with the agents of the Corporation.
It is understood that your wife, your son, brother or any close relation of yours or any other member of your family living with you is not eligible for appointment as an agent of the Corporation If you operate any benami agency in the name of any person or if you are found to pass on any business to any of your agents and derive any financial benefit for yourself from this, your services will be liable to be terminated.
You are not permitted to work directly or indirectly for any Insurer carrying on general Insurance business you are also not permitted to work as an agent for the National Savings organisation.
" A perusal of the above extracted terms and conditions of appointment shows that a development officer is to be a whole time employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
that his operations are to be restricted to a defined area and that he is liable to be transferred.
He has no authority whatsoever to bind the Corporation in anyway.
His principal duty appears to be to organise and develop the business of the Corporation in the area allotted to him and for that purpose to recruit active and reliable agents, to train them to canvass new business and to render post sale services to policy holders.
He is expected to assist and inspire the agents.
Even so he has not the authority to appoint agents or to take disciplinary action against them.
He does not even supervise the work of the agents though he is required to train them and assist them.
He is to be the 811 'friend, philosopher and guide ' of the agents working within his jurisdiction and no more.
He is expected to stimulate and excite tho agents to work, while exercising no administrative control over them.
The agents are not his subordinates.
In fact, it is admitted that he has no subordinate staff working under him.
It is thus clear that the development officer cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be engaged in any administrative or managerial work.
He is a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial, Disputes Act.
The order of the Industrial Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for disposal according to law.
The Industrial Tribunal may dispose of the reference within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
The respondent workman is entitled to his costs.
H.L,C. Appeal allowed.

summary/full:
On a reference being made to it concerning the dismissal from service of the appellant who was a Development officer in the Life Insurance Corporation, the Industrial Tribunal upheld a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the reference and ruled that Development officers in the Corporation were not workmen within the meaning of section 2(s) of the .
His petition under article 226 questioning the validity of the Tribunal 's ruling having been dismissed in limine by the High Court, the appellant approached this Court under article 136.
Allowing the appeal, ^ HELD: Development officers in the Life Insurance Corporation are workmen ' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the [821 B] (i) The Act is a legislation intended to bring about peace and harmony between labour and management in industry and, for that purpose, it makes provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes.
It is, therefore, necessary to interpret the definitions of 'industry ', 'workman ', `industrial disputes ' etc., so as not to whittle down, but to advance the object of the Act.
Disputes between forces of labour and management are not to be excluded from the operation of the Act by giving narrow and restricted meanings to expressions in the Act.
Parliament could never be credited with the intention of keeping out of the purview of the legislation small bands of employees who, though not on the managerial side of the establishment, are yet to be denied the ordinary rights of the forces of labour for no apparent reason at all.
[803 D F] Workmen of Indian Standards Institution vs Management of Indian Standards Institution, ; , referred to.
(ii) The words "any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work" in section 2(s) of the Act are not intended to limit or narrow the amplitude of the definition of 'workman '; on the other hand they indicate and emphasize the broad sweep of the definition which is designed to coverall manner of persons employed in an industry, irrespective of whether they are 800 engaged in skilled work or unskilled work, manual work or supervisory work, technical work or clerical work.
Quite obviously, the broad intention is to take in the entire `labour force ' and exclude the 'managerial force '.
[803 B C] (iii) one does not have to be carried away by the appellation 'development officer ' but must look to the nature of his duties to discover what precisely a development officer is.
It is seen from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations that development officers, while classified separately from 'Supervisory and Clerical Staff ' are also classified separately from 'officers ' and from the scales of pay prescribed as well as the authorities competent to appoint and take disciplinary action in respect of various categories of officers and staff mentioned therein it is clear that the appellation 'development officer ' is no more than a glorified designation.
Development officers are separated from 'officers ' strictly so called and are generally placed on a par with subordinate and clerical staff.
The nature of the duties of a development officer gathered from the letter of appointment issued to the appellant indicate that he is to be a whole time employee of the Corporation, that his operations are to be restricted to a defined area, that he is liable to be transferred, that he has no authority to bind the Corporation in any way, that his principal duty is to organise and develop the business of the Corporation in an area allotted to him and for that purpose to recruit active and reliable agents and to train them and that even so, he has not the authority either to appoint them or to take disciplinary action against them.
Further, it was admitted that a development officer has no subordinate staff working under him.
It is thus clear that a development officer cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be engaged in any administrative or managerial work.
[804 D H, 805 A E, 811 B] 2.
Whenever an industrial dispute is referred to a tribunal for adjudication it has become a fashion with all employers to raise three preliminary objections, viz., that there is no industry, that there is no industrial dispute and that the workman is no workman.
It is a pity that when the Central Government, in all solemnity, refers an industrial dispute for adjudication, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality of the State instead of welcoming a decision by the tribunal on merits so as to absolve itself of any charge of being a bad employer should attempt to evade decision on merits by raising such objections and never thereby satisfied, carry the matter or ten times to the High Court and to the Supreme Court, wasting public time and money.
Public sector corporations must be model employers and model litigants.
They should not attempt to avoid adjudication by raising needless objections or by adopting needless postures or by indulging in luxurious litigation and drag workman from court to court merely to vindicate, not justice, but some rigid technical stand taken up by them.
[801 D H]