WP/6037/2000 of M.P.TRANSPORT WORKERS FEDERATION Vs THE STATE OF M.P. and ORS. on 7 December 2001

M.P. Transport Workers'fsderati.on(INTUC): •fchrouqhi-'ts^ VicB-Pre,sident,Wsdan nohsn Shukls,aged about58 yezrs,S/o S.hriB.L. Shukla,:/M.P. Stats Road TransportCoTporation,DiuisiDn?.!-office,Bilaspur.,•.':•

' ,

. , ,

2. Anil Kher . ,. , ,...sged38 years,, '.,,.... „.S^o ; Shrl'tcxte.' -SV. %ie;'tEIark& Diuisional:SscretsFy,n.P.' Transport.Worklrs1 ..FedEira't:io^';(lWTUCy,RaigarhDivisisn,1-1.P.' S^ate Rdad.'Tranaport; JCorpoFatiDn,RaigarhDBpo,Distt.Raiqsrh.

Usrsus:

The State of nadhya-Prsi'desh'chroughi-fcs Sapis'tifcry, 'ii&allabh.(TranspDrt5_3_ Bhaiuan,.._.Bho:D=I.:| <.A- The Chi efS ecratary,>:Govt. of N''adhya Pradesh,:Bhopal../:. \'; TheM.P.^ Road Transpo'rt::EoroorsAon j~hrouahA its-v::r''::''lu]gna:ging Dl^^tot^':/'^Bhopai.[•]

v::r''::''

The :DivisiDnalManag^er,M.P. Ststs Roed TrsnspBrltCorpDra.fciDn,' Bilaapur»L ^ 226^227OFTHE

L%-^^^^ ^PETITIONUNOER flRTIGLE 226^227

CDNSTITUTION OF :INDIfl

E.£ir.tlcJ^la.SLS^3£.Jlhe.Jl.§fc:I..tloIL££2-L

:

As! s t'aSt'sy' a bove .

Si'i

.'Sfv-SSS

"^:.•i^?l';;'i^'K''S;-''i;'^L..t;^iii,^:4^>.;'[M<..Hil;.;.^i'IBii.aili i":S"-';tk:i\'::'^ '; Si;^F^^ ir ^^i'^I ilf -vs -a •is...L'^

-^

Fsti

:'MWfr^illftii••1?-^...^-i| .-!.-;•3'1

^'.fc5^o.t~y^^'.^jS^ t>.^ ^' ^' ^f^" -^' 6.^ "<'"'. ^^(Jai.pn^. o£_ Xndla,_.'Fl>a^K /.. ''s^'*^i-<?S?//..~i • ^^'Aiyough Secretary,Ministry of personnel,Publ.l.e <Sarievances and Pension,New Belhi,7.secretary.<i^Govt. OfIndia,tiaistry of surface Transport,& Hlgbways.Parivahan Bhawan,New Delhi.

-^-

^

HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAHJSSARH

ATBILASPUR

WRTTPETTTION N0.6037 of 2000

M.P.Transport Workers' Feder'ation

(INTUC) Bilaspw & Anofher

- ys-

Sfate of Madhya Pradesh & Qthers

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.J'ustice W.A.Shishak,C.J'.,SHon'ble Mr. J'ustice Fakhniddin, J.

Present:

5hriManindraShrlvastwa,wfthShn'AshishShrivastava, learned counsel for the pet/tfoners.

Shri Vivek Tankha,learned Advocate Seneral ofMadhya Pradesh with ShriAJay Mfshra,tearned £>y.Advocate Seneral for respondents l & 2.

Shri A. 6.

Dhande, learned counsel for respondents

3 and 4.

ShrfRavindraShrivastava,learnedAdvocateGeneralof Chhattfsgarh with Dr.N.K.Shukla,learnedDy. Advocate General for respondent No. 5.

Shrf KiritN.Rawal.learned Additional SollcltorSeneral of India with Shrl A. S.Saharwar,learned Sr.Central Sovernment Standing Counsel for Unlon of India.Heard.

The folhwing order was passed byHon'ble Mr.Justice Fakhruddin, J.ORDER

(Passed on 07-12-2001)

This pet/tion was originally ffled by the petftfonerNo. 1 ffiadhya Pradesh State Road Transporl- Corporation,Divisional Office, Bhopal and No. 2 M. P. S.R.T.C. RaigarhDepot in the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur on 17-10-2000styl/ngftasPubllc InterestLfti'gationforadirection to the respondents for payment of regularsalary and also for the payment which was withheid bytherespondents.However,afterbifwcation of theState the safd Stood transferred to High Court pet/tfonof Chhattisgarh at B/laspw.Following reliefs have beenprayed for by the petitioners.J.Summontheenti'rerelevant -^- (^S&

record from the respondents for

its kfnd perusal;

2. comtnand the respondents to pay

the salary and other benefits to

the

theemployeesof

which is wfthheld

M.P.S.R.T.C.

ChartP/2

themasbyperforthwith:

otherreliefwhichthisanyHon'ble Court deems fft may also

3. be granted:

cost of the petltlon may kindlybe awarded.

4.

2. Learned counsel for the submitted pet/tfonersthat the emphyer of the employees worh'ng is prlnclpalthe Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.Counsel for the petitioners fwrther submitted that thesalary has not been pa/d to the employees worklng in theBilaspw Divisfon,Rafgarh Oepot and Ambikapur depotand Korba depot.It is also the subm/ssfon of thelearned counsel for the that the pet/tioner petitfoners\

6 e.

have always been treated discriminately with respect to[of][ salary][ because][ the][ emp/oyees][ working][ under]paymentthe Bhopal dlvislon of M.P.S.R.T.C.were gettiiy fullsalevy dwlng the when the employees worklng m perfodBilaspw, Ra/garh and Korba depots wer'e deprived of thesmie.

3. So far asHighCourt ofChhattisgarhisconcernedthemattercameupforheariryon10.11.2000.Notices were directed to be issued toshow cause why the be not allowed with a petitiondirectloninfavowoftheand against pet/tionersrespondents No. 3 and 4 that why the salary be rwt paidto the emphyees.It came up for further hearing on12.01.2001 before bivision Bench.On 12.01. 2001 theCoirt noted that in splte of service none was present onbehalf of MPSRTC and directions were issued.Thematter was agaln listed on 27.02.2001.05.03.2001,15.03.2001,18.04.2001and23.04.2001.On23.04.2001,theffiancglfgDirectorwas presentInperson and the order was passed wh/ch is reproducedherefn below:- ^"5 - 'The respondentsNo.3and 4have submitted a scheme to the Courtsuggesting that a si»n of Rs. 30 lacswouldbecollectedbytheM.P.S.R. T.C. from different dfvlsions0/7 or before ffh May,2001 so thatone month's salary can be pa/d to theemployees.They have also asswedthatasum ofRs.IOlacs willbearrangedbyDivlsionalManeyerBflaspur and swi of Rs. 20 lacs will bearrangedbyHeadOfficeonorbefore lffh May, 2001.Accordlng tothein,out of the totalamount ofRs. 60lacstobecollected,onemonth's salary would be paid to theemployeesofBllaspwDivisionincludfrgRafgarh depot and rest oftheamountwouldbeusedformobilising the buses which have beenput off the road.The petitfoners GC.

counsel Shrl Shrivastava subm/ts thatbecause of thebadconditton,thebuses in this Divisfon are nat earnfnganyreveiweandtherespondentCorporationknowingwellfsnotprovidirythem the facilities.ShriAjayMishra,learnedcounselrepresentfrgtheStateofM.P.submits that the State Sovernmenthas decided to bifwcate the RoadTransportCwporation Into twoandevenotherwisetheyarenotanswerabletotheclalmsofthesalaryoftheemployeesoftheCiyporation.He,however,submitsthat the State is ready and willirg to its fullest co-operatlon to theprovideCorporation so that it runs smoothly,twi- relatlrg to of salary it is paymentmade clearbyhim fhat the State

-1 -

Sovernment is not obliged to bew the

expenses.

The parties includlng the StateofM.P.wererequlred toprovidesome and concrete scheme to pos/tiverev/vethedyiryCorporationbutneitherthepetitfonernortherespondentshavesomeposi'tfvescheme with them.The of paymentthesalarytotheemployeesmay sewie so/ace to them and theyprov/demay surv/ve for smie time but thatwould not anythiry fn favour pravfdeof theCorporation fw its survlval.'It is expected of the employees oftheCorporation.theCorporationitself and the State Government thattheycome out with some concreteproposal to restructure,reestablishand revfve the Corporation.

ThematterbeIfstedforconsideration on tfMcsy. 2001. It isexpected of the Corporation that bytfMay it wouid pay salary of onemonth to the employees of BllaspurDivlsion Includfry Raigarh Depot.Itis also expected of the respondent-Corporation that it would collect thecunount to brify the vehicles back onthe road.It is, however, made clearthaf before the Corporation is dividedtnto two, the State of M.P.wouldaisobrlngsomeschemepositlvebecause so hiy as the Corporation isnot diw'ded, it cannot be expec+edfrotn the Stafe of Chhattisgarh thattheywouldhavesornesayin thematter.Both the State Govermnentsin the interest of the employees ofthe Corporation or at least in thefnterest of their citfzens who are \..;\."^

^

^

worklrgwiththeRoadTransporf'Corporationshouldevolvesaneschemesothatthepublicwhichelects the government may not sufferbecause of the bad either of policiesthe Corporation or of the concerneddeparl-ment of the government. "

4. The matter came up for]hecring on 09.05.2001and it was adjowned to 02.07.2001 and 06.08.2001.On06.08.2001boththeAdvocateGeneralsofrespective States along with Officers were present andtheysoughtslxweeks' tfmetoenablethepart-fesconcerned of the two States to settle the matter.Atthe request of Shri A.S.Dhande,learned counsel forrespondent No. 3 and 4,further time was granted on24.09.2001anddirectionwasissuedregardingthepayment up to month of Juty, 2001 within 15 days fromthe date of order.Corporation employees were alsodfrected to render due co-operation.The matter cameyp for furfher hearing on 22. 10. 2001 and by referringthe orders dated 24.09. 2001 the partfes were reminded ^

and were notlced and sfnce no substantlal progress wasmade it was directed that Chlef Secretarfes of both theStatesofMadhyaPradeshandChhattlsgarh togothrotyh the order sheets passed in the case and shouldfile their affidavits on or before 05.11.2001 regardlngthe compliance of the orders passed by this Court andactlon taken pursuant to the orders passed.

5. On05.11.2001.ShrlAJayMishra,t>y.Advocate Seneral of M. P. appeared and filed the xeroxcopy of the affidavlt stating that origfnal was left atJabalpwand itwas ordered tobeffledandcopythereof be supplied to the other si'de.He prayed forandwasgrantedtimeupto09.11.2001.On09.11.2001 afffdavits of Chief Secretaries of State ofM. P. as well as that of Chhattisgarh have been filed andthis Court had passed orders as under :- "AffidavitsoftheChiefSecretarlesofStateofMadhyaPradeshaswellasthatofChhattisgarh have been filed and thesame have been perused.

-\\ -

So fw as the petitioners areconcerned, they undertake that fheyshall not make any agftatfon <yai'nsttheM.P.StQteRoadTransportCorporat/onortheStateadministration.However, it is madeclear that if any person indutges inefthertheanyagftationagainstMPSRTC or the State administration.shall be dealt-wfth in accordance withlaw for dfsobedience of the order ofthfs Court.

Havlrythusconsideredthefacts and circwistances of the caseand material available on record, itappears to be Just and proper thatthe Transport Secretarfes of boththe Statesi.e.State ofMadhyaPradesh and State of Chhattlsgarhshall remain before this £.ourt presenton the next date of hewlng.Chief ^*

-\'L

Secretarfes of both the State mayalsoremainwi'th complete presentrecwd.

It is noted that In thls mafterthe Secretary Sovernment ofM.P.hasmettheTransportMinistertwlce.In the cfrcwistances, it wouldbeandthatthejustproperTransportMiru'stersofboththeStatesalsoremainmaypresentbeforethfsCourf'incasenoreconclliation takes place m view ofsection58(3)oftheStateRe-organisatlonAct,2000 and sectfon47-A of the State Road TransportCorporation Act.

Sofarassalaryoftheemployees is concerned Shri Dhandesubmits that for the month of JulyRs.22,00,000/- hme been and pafdRs.4.00.000/- are yet to be pai'd.

\\,

-\'i, -

ForthemonthofAugustRs. 26,00. OOO/- wfll be required.

Lst full salary fw the month ofJuly and Aiyust. 2001 be wfthfn paidflve days from today.If there isanyfinancial constraint,both,theState of Chhattisgarh and also Sta+eof Madhya Pradesh are obliged toconsfdertherecpjestforsuchfinancial assistance.

TheChairmanandManagingDirector of theMPSRTC shall alsoremafn the next date of present onhearfng.Unfon of Indi'a be Joi'ned ttroughconcerned Secretary and notice beissued.

Ust the case on 23. 11.2001.6.On23.11.2001.themattercameupforfurther heariiy and the order was passed as under :- -\^

'^oneoftheorSecretaryanybody else is for the State presentof Chhatti^arh.

ShriSaharwarsubmitsthatcopy of the pet/tfon has not beensupplfed to h/m.

Learnedcounselforthepetitioner Is d/rected to suppfy twocopiesof thepetftfondwingthecowseoftheanddayacknowledgement be obtained.

Shri Mlshra.Z?y.A.6. for theState of M.P. subm/ts that he hasfiledaffidwitoftheChiefSecretary.He further submfts thatall thedocwientsincludiry retwnetc.have already been supplfed tothe cpunsel for Union ffovt.

A.6. representiiy representiiy

Learned Oy.A.6. representiiy representiiyState of Q^hsl-tisgarh Is directed tosuppty all the papers including retwn, •*"^

affidavit etc. to the counsel for theUnlon of Indfa during the course ofthedayandackmwledgementbeobtalned.

Sofarasthesalaryisconcerned it fs stated that for JulyandAugustinonthssalaryoftheemployees of Bflaspur Divfsion is pafd.So far as Ra/pur and other div/s/onsare concerned,if the salary is notpald,effortsbemade to paythesalaryofthemonths ofJutyandAugust 11117.12. 2001.

Shrf Shrivastava undertakes toflle list of the employees of Bilaspur,Rafpw and other dlvisions of State ofChhattisgarh.Let all the members oftheUruon tofi'le thefr detailslikeplace of posting, post on which theyare workiry along with photograph.

^

Raipur blvision be also jolned asparty in this petitfon,slnce it is apublic fnterest petitlon.ShrtShrlvastavasubmits thatthe employees / workers we faclnghardshfp,some times they fell sickandoneJaframdiedfacingthehardship.If any such case come inthe light, the same shall be referredto the Collector concerned who shallprovide medlcal afd.

So far as nona^appearance oftheofficersoftheStateofChhattisgarh Is concerned, it requiresexplanation from each of themandaff/davft to that effectbe also filedtill the next date of hearing.

The Secretary and officers ofthe State of Chhattlsgarh who weredfrectedtoremainshailpresent,remain present on the next date of hearing.So faras of presenceSecretary and ofher officers of theStateofMadhyaPradeshareconcerned on rhe they may appewnext date of heariry.

The dispute is such which maybe resofved by the two states.It issubmftted that the State of MadhyaPradeshhasalreadymovedforbifwcation.theschemehasbeenprepared and has been submitted tothe Central Sovernment.The cablnet& sub-commlttee of the cabinet ofStateofChhattlsgarhhavetodecide.There should be no difficultyin taklng decision.So far as thisCourf is concerned suffice it to saythat there should be no dffficulty intaktng decislon and ft may be taken atthe eorliest possible.If is statedthat the Chlef Secretary of both the ^- \^

Statehave takenup the matter.The Advocate General of both theStates to co-ordinate.The progressregardffy of bifurcatfon and processdeclsiontakenifanyshallbesubmitted to this Court on the nextdate of hear/ng.

Sinceftfsreportedthattearned Solicitor 6eneral is comiig on7'December2001in some othercase, thls case be also listed on fhatday.Liston 7.12.2001."

7. Pursuant to the orders by thfs Court on passed 23.11.2001 this case was taken up today.Counsel forthe have been heard at length. parl-ies

8. ThewasfiledatJabalpurandpetitionthereafter applfcations for amendment have also beenfiled.Subsequent events have taken place.9. Shrl A. S. Dhande, learned counsel appearirg forthe respondents No.3 and 4 further subinitted thatafterformatlonnewStateofChhattisgarhthe .\ct Corporatfon also felt difficultles.It fs alleged by himthat proper co-operation is not being extended by theofficialsas well as certafn routes areclosed.TheCorpwation has also made varlous appllcattons.Theyalso raised thefr grievances whlch have arisen subsequentto the bifwcatfon of the State.Shri A.G.Dhande,learnedcounselappearirgforrespondents3and4st^mitl-ed that State Road Transport Corporatlon is notgetting proper co-operation from the State Authoritiesto strengthen I'ts financial cond/tion and fwther thatbcal adtninistration has prohfblted the plying of busesthrotyh the orlginal route which passes before the HighCourt and the respondents are compelled to ply theirbuses by adopting circuitous route resulting in addit/onalplyiryof18klmspertripperbuswhichcausesaddftionalburdenoveralreadysickTransportCorporation.Itisstatedbythecounsel forthsrespondents 3 and 4 that licensed Maxi Cabs owners whopty fn the nationalized roiftes as per permit given by thestate Sovernment also ply frornBus stand and as perdiscussion wlth the Oeputy Commissfofier,Transport of the State it was decided that separate Bus Stand forMwa' Cabs would be and the Maxi Cabs owners providedwould nat be permftted to ply from theBus stand.However, this decfston was not implemented r'esultfry inhuge loss to the Corporation.He further submitted thatthe local administr'ation and the Transport Commissionerbedfrected toallowtheCorporationbusesto ptythroightheorlginalrouteandtheffiaxiCabsberestrained from operat/ry from the Bus stand.

10. After formation of the State new situationshave arlsen and the Court- has also certain orders passedfrow tfme to tlme.The State of Madhya Pradesh hasalready created fts own Corporatlon at Bhopal and forcreation of the same In Chhattisgarh State the matterhas been placed before the Cabinet and some decislonhas to be taken by the State of Chhattisgarh for thescune.

11. In thfs view of the matter it would be Just and toan opportunity to the to ffleproper give petftlonerstheafreshIncorporatingall thesubsequent petitionevents if they so desire.So far as salary partSs concerned the who are workiig In the State of personsChhattisgarh in different depots should be pald theirsalaryr^ularly.WhiledlsbwslngsalarytotheemployeesifthereisanydffffcultytheChiefSecretaries of both the States may sit together andsort out the matter effectively.At this steye we canonty say that the matter should be resolved at theState level Itself.Both the State shall look into thematter and the advocate Senerafs as well as ChiefSecretaries of concerned Departments of both the Stateshall take necessary steps in that direction. It would befitness of thirys that the matter should be resolved atthe State level and efforts should be made for thesame.12. Havliy thoughtful consideration we of the gfvenopfnion that so far as salary part of Bilaspur, Raipw andother depots are concerned the orders have been passedfrom time to tfme by this Court and suitable gwdelineshave been issued.In vfew of the developments whichhavetakenplace,itisJustand propertogiveopportunity to the petitfoner to file afresh petftion raislngallthetfuestionsiftheysodesire.TheCorporation may also ffle such petftion which ft wants tofile.The MPSRTC may also flle suftable applicatfon.Parties to thfs petition are also at llberty to flle suftableapplicatfons, if they so desire.

13. Before partingwe have mentfoned that thematters llke this, it is always better that the dlsputesare resolved by mutual co-operationofboth the^States.Such disputes Ifke present one can be resolvedby Transport Secretarles or the Chief Secretaries ofboth the respective Sfates.The Advocate Genwals ofboth the respectfve States may also render due co-operation.14. Shri Kirit N. Rawal, learned addltional SolicitorGeneral of Indfa submltted that if they fail, and if boththe States are not in a position to resolve the matterand if the occasion arlses or the Government of both theStatesmakesrequestInthatregard,theCentralGovernment would look tnto the matter in accordancewith law.

^

''S,

•

-2-'?,-

£

15. Havlng considered the facts and circwistancesof the case and the materfal available on record perusedfncludfng the retwns and rejolnders duly supporfed byaffldmits, »edfspose of th/s petlti'on at this stage wlththe above d/rections and observations.However, the[shall][ be][ at][ Itberty][ to][ agltate][ their]pet/tfonersgrievance,// any, afresh before the compefent authority if they sodeslre and the docwients, if any, filed may be retwnedafter stat copfes of the same are on photo placedrecord.Certified photocopy to all the part/es free of cost.Sd/-~Sd/-Chief JusticeFakhruddin Sd/-FakhruddinJudge