No 1325 of 1987
937 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India P Rangaswamy KK Gupta and Capt
Virendera Kumar for the Petitioners
KR Nagaraja and RS Hegde for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER Thirty two petitioners in this application under article 32 of the Constitution are Bus Conductors in the employment of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation respondent No 1
They have alleged that the respondent Corporation is a statutory organisation and is State  within the meaning of article 12
The normal practice prevalent in the Corporation is to initially appoint Conductors on daily wage basis and regularise them in due course
According to them 19 daily wage Conductors as mentioned in Annexure A  to the petition were regularised and brought on the time scale of pay with effect from the original date of their employment as daily wage Conductors while though the petitioners have served for quite a long period they have not yet been regularised
They have alleged discrimination and claimed relief on the basis of article 14
They have asked for a direction to the Transport Corporation to bring them on the time scale by regularisation from the date each of them came to be em ployed by the Corporation as stated in Annexure B 
The Corporation in its return to the rule has accepted the position that it is a statutory body created under section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950
There is no challenge to the allegation of the petitioners that initial appointment is on daily wage basis and as and when regular vacancies arise the daily rated employees are brought on time scale of pay and services are regularised
Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit specifically challenged the asser tion of the petitioners that 19 similarly placed employees were confirmed on the date of initial employment on daily rated basis
The plea in paragraph 9 is as follows The information furnished in Annexure A showing that 19 persons who were working in different divisions have been appointed on time scale on the same date is absolutely wrong and misleading
The petitioners have sworn 938 false affidavit without making any effort to verify the factual position
The date of confirmation in majority of the cases has been shown in Annexure A as the date of their appointment just to prejudice this Court
 Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs Union of India  Ors and an order made on 14th of July 1988 in Writ Petition No 8307 1183 which is still awaiting final disposal
The facts of the reported decision were very different
It would be sufficient to refer to paragraph 2 of the judgment The principal complaint of the petitioners is that even though many of them have been work ing for the last ten years as casual labour ers the wages paid to them are very low and far less than the salary and allowances paid to the regular employees of the Posts and Telegraphs Department belonging to each of the categories referred to above and secondly no scheme has been prepared by the Union of India to absorb them regularly in its service and consequently they have been denied the bene fits such as increments pension leave facilities etc
which are enjoyed by those who have been recruited regularly
They allege that they are being exploited by the Union of India  Petitioners have not made these allegations and their sole grievance is of discrimination on the basis that while they have not been regularised though they have been serving for a good number of years in some cases about 14 years the 19 persons named in Annexure A  have been regu larised from the date of initial employment
It is there fore not necessary to refer to the decision
The order in the pending writ application is also on a different set of facts and therefore need not be further referred to
At the hearing of the writ application petitioners relied upon a draft seniority list published by the Corpora tion in support of their stand while the Corporation on the basis of a document appended to the counter affidavit main tained that the particulars were wrong and since the docu ment was only at the draft stage and mistakes appearing therein were yet to be corrected no reliance can be placed on the particulars appearing therein and the original record should be referred to
939 In view of the pointed question raised by the petition ers and the denial in the return we made an order on 2821989 to the following effect The dispute has arisen before us regarding the identity of all the persons
The Registrar General is directed to assign an Officer to examine the photostat copy of the Original Record in possession of learned counsel for the respondents for the purpose of determining whether there is any discrepancy between that record and the printed list which has been furnished before us in relation to the 34 petitioners as well as the 19 employees set out in Annexure A  annexed to the Writ Peti tion
 The report dated 2nd of March 1989 on the basis of the printed document and the photostat copies of records made available at the time of examination to the Officer shows that there are discrepancies
The original record however is not available in the Court
It is not disputed before us by counsel for the respond ents that in case benefit of regularisation has been con ferred on daily rated employees from the date of initial employment and such benefit has not been extended to the petitioners the grievance grounded upon article 14 of the Constitution would be valid
The matter to be examined therefore is with reference to factual position as to when the 19 persons in Annexure A  were initially employed and when they have been regularised as against the initial employment of each of the petitioners
This can be done only by reference to appropriate records
We direct that a senior officer of the Corporation shall be named by respondent No 1 to look into these allegations and at the time the ques tion is examined by such officer the petitioners shall be given appropriate opportunity of being heard if asked for through counsel also and all relevant documents should be looked into to ascertain whether the claim of the petition ers that they have been discriminated against in the facts indicated in their writ petition particularly with reference to Annexure A  is correct and in case it is found that the petitioners have not been given the benefit which has been given to the 19 daily rated Conductors specified in Annexure A  petitioners may be conferred the same benefit as has been extended to those 19 persons unless the respondent is able to assign satisfactory and cogent reasons and states as to why petitioners are not entitled to the same benefit
This would be so on the footing that regularisation does not require a specified period of service to have been put in
The respondent 940 Corporation shall designate the authority within two weeks and the enquiry by him in the manner directed above shall be completed within three months
On the basis of the report furnished by such authority the respondent is directed to take a final decision within two months thereafter
There shall be no direction as to costs


Summary:
A the unsuccessful candidate at an election filed an elec tion petition against B the successful candidate claiming a declaration  that the election of B was void and that lie had been duly elected as he had secured the next highest number of valid votes
On the first date of the hearing before the Election Tribunal A submitted an application under 0 23 r 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure abandoning the relief claiming the seat
B objected to the abandonment and filed a notice of recrimination under section 97 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 accompanied by the statement and necessary particulars
A contended that B was not entitled to give evidence in recrimination as the claim for the seat had been abandoned
The Tribunal held that section 901 of the Act had made the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings in election petitions and as such A had a right under 0 23 r 1 of the Code to abandon a part of his claim and that A having abandoned his claim for the seat B was no longer entitled to recriminate Held that the provisions of the Act constitute a self con tained code governing the trial of an election petition and in spite of section 901 of the Act the provisions 0
23 r 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable to the trial of an election petition by the Tribunal  and it was not open to A to withdraw or abandon a part of his claim once an election petition had been presented to the Election Commission particularly when such a withdrawal or abandonment of a part of the claim would have had the effect of depriving B of the right of recrimination which had accrued to him under section 97 Of the Act
The right of recrimination accrued to B the moment the election petition was presented to the Election Commission containing the claim for the seat and it was not open to A to defeat this right by withdrawing or abandoning the claim for the seat
An election petition once filed does not mean a contest only between the parties thereto but continues for the benefit of the whole constituency and cannot come to an end merely by the withdrawal thereof by the petitioner or even by his death or 78 612 by the death or withdrawal of opposition by the respondent but is liable to be continued by any person who might have been a petitioner