2. CDNSTITUTION OF :INDIfl M.P. Transport Workers' fsderati.on (INTUC) : •fchrouqh i-'ts^ VicB-Pre,sident, Wsdan nohsn Shukls, aged about 58 yezrs, S/o S.hri B.L. Shukla, : / M.P. Stats Road Transport CoTporation, DiuisiDn?.!- office, Bilaspur. , •.': • Anil Kher . ' , . , ... sged 38 years,, '.,,.... „. S^o ; Shrl'tcxte.' -SV. %ie;'t EIark & Diuisional:SscretsFy, n.P.' Transport.Worklrs1 .. FedEira't:io^';(lWTUCy, Raigarh Divisisn, 1-1.P.' S^ate Rdad. ' Tranaport; JCorpoFatiDn, Raigarh DBpo, Distt. Raiqsrh. Usrsus: mz The State of nadhya-Prsi'desh 'chrough i-fcs Sapis'tifcry, 'ii (TranspDrt5_3_ . _. <.A- &allabh. Bhaiuan,. Bho:D=I.:| The Chi ef S ecratary, >:Govt. of N''adhya Pradesh,: Bhopal. . / : . \' ; TheM.P.^ Road Transpo'rt:: EoroorsAon j~hrouahA its- v lu]gna:ging Dl^^tot^':/'^ ::r''::'' Bhopai. • The :DivisiDnal Manag^er, M.P. Ststs Roed TrsnspBrlt CorpDra.fciDn,' Bilaapur» -vs 1111 -a %-^^^^ ^ L m PETITION UNOER flRTIGLE 226^227 OF THE E.£ir.tlcJ^la.SLS^3£.Jlhe.Jl.§fc:I..tloIL££2-L As! s t'aSt'sy' a bove . : Si'i .'Sfv-SSS ^iii,^:4^>.;'[M<..Hil;.;.^i'IBii.aili •i^?l';;'i^'K''S;-''i;'^L..t; i" "^:. :S"-';tk:i\'::'^ '; Si;^F^^ ir ^^i'^I ilf •is... -^ L'^ Fsti fr^i :'MW llftii ••1?-^...^-i| .-!.-;• 3'1 'Fl>a -^- .fc5^o.t~y^ ^' .^jS^ ^' -^' ^ . _ _ . ^' t>.^ ^' ^f^" 6. ^^(Jai.pn o£ Xndla, ^K /.. '' s^'*^ ^ "<'"'. i-<? S? //..~i • ^^'Aiyough Secretary, Ministry of personnel, Publ.l.e <Sarievances and Pension, New Belhi, 7. secretary. <i^ Govt. Of India, 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'., S Hon'ble Mr. J'ustice Fakhniddin, J. Present: 5hri Manindra Shrlvastwa, wfth Shn' Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the pet/tfoners. Shri Vivek Tankha, learned Advocate Seneral of Madhya Pradesh with Shri AJay Mfshra, tearned £>y. Advocate Seneral for respondents l & 2. Shri A. 6. Dhande, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Shrf Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Advocate Generalof Chhattfsgarh with Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent No. 5. -2 - Shrf Kirit N. Rawal. learned Additional Sollcltor Seneral of India with Shrl A. S. Saharwar, learned Sr. Central Sovernment Standing Counsel for Unlon of India. Heard. The folhwing order was passed by Hon'ble Mr. —•^ Justice Fakhruddin, J. ORDER (Passed on 07-12-2001) This pet/tion was originally ffled by the petftfoner No. 1 ffiadhya Pradesh State Road Transporl- Corporation, Divisional Office, Bhopal and No. 2 M. P. S.R.T.C. Raigarh Depot in the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur on 17-10- 2000 styl/ng ft as Publlc Interest Lfti'gation for a direction to the respondents for payment of regular salary and also for the payment which was withheid by the respondents. However, after bifwcation of the State the safd pet/tfon Stood transferred to High Court of Chhattisgarh at B/laspw. Following reliefs have been prayed for by the petitioners. J. Summon the enti're relevant -^- record from the respondents for its kfnd perusal; 2. comtnand the respondents to pay the salary and other benefits to the employees of the M.P.S.R.T.C. which is wfthheld by them as per Chart P/2 forthwith: 3. any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fft may also be granted: 4. cost of the petltlon may kindly be awarded. (^S& 2. Learned counsel for the pet/tfoners submitted that the prlnclpal emphyer of the employees worh'ng is the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Counsel for the petitioners fwrther submitted that the salary has not been pa/d to the employees worklng in the Bilaspw Divisfon, Rafgarh Oepot and Ambikapur depot and Korba depot. It is also the subm/ssfon of the learned counsel for the pet/tioner that the petitfoners \ -b 6 e. have always been treated discriminately with respect to payment of salary because the emp/oyees working under the Bhopal dlvislon of M.P.S.R.T.C. were gettiiy full salevy dwlng the perfod when the employees worklng m Bilaspw, Ra/garh and Korba depots wer'e deprived of the smie. 3. So far as High Court of Chhattisgarh is concerned the matter came up for heariry on 10.11.2000. Notices were directed to be issued to show cause why the petition be not allowed with a directlon in favow of the pet/tioners and against respondents No. 3 and 4 that why the salary be rwt paid to the emphyees. It came up for further hearing on 12.01.2001 before bivision Bench. On 12.01. 2001 the Coirt noted that in splte of service none was present on behalf of MPSRTC and directions were issued. The matter was agaln listed on 27.02.2001. 05.03.2001, 15.03.2001, 18.04.2001 and 23.04.2001. On 23.04.2001, the ffiancglfg Director was present In person and the order was passed wh/ch is reproduced herefn below:- ^"5 - GC. 'The respondents No.3 and 4 have submitted a scheme to the Court suggesting that a si»n of Rs. 30 lacs would be collected by the M.P.S.R. T.C. from different dfvlsions 0/7 or before ffh May, 2001 so that one month's salary can be pa/d to the employees. They have also asswed that a sum of Rs.IO lacs will be arranged by Divlsional Maneyer Bflaspur and swi of Rs. 20 lacs will be arranged by Head Office on or before lffh May, 2001. Accordlng to thein, out of the total amount of Rs. 60 lacs to be collected, one month's salary would be paid to the employees of Bllaspw Division includfrg Rafgarh depot and rest of the amount would be used for mobilising the buses which have been put off the road. The petitfoners 66 i counsel Shrl Shrivastava subm/ts that because of the bad conditton, the buses in this Divisfon are nat earnfng any reveiwe and the respondent Corporation knowing well fs not providiry them the facilities. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel representfrg the State of M.P. submits that the State Sovernment has decided to bifwcate the Road Transport Cwporation Into two and even otherwise they are not answerable to the clalms of the salary of the employees of the Ciyporation. He, however, submits that the State is ready and willirg to provide its fullest co-operatlon to the Corporation so that it runs smoothly, twi- relatlrg to payment of salary it is made clear by him fhat the State -1 - Sovernment is not obliged to bew the rc) fo^ I- expenses. The parties includlng the State of M.P. were requlred to provide some pos/tive and concrete scheme to rev/ve the dyiry Corporation but neither the petitfoner nor the respondents have some posi'tfve scheme with them. The payment of the salary to the employees may prov/de sewie so/ace to them and they may surv/ve for smie time but that would not pravfde anythiry fn favour of the Corporation fw its survlval.' It is expected of the employees of the Corporation. the Corporation itself and the State Government that they come out with some concrete proposal to restructure, reestablish and revfve the Corporation. The matter be Ifsted for consideration on tf Mcsy. 2001. It is expected of the Corporation that by tf May it wouid pay salary of one month to the employees of Bllaspur Divlsion Includfry Raigarh Depot. It is also expected of the respondent- Corporation that it would collect the cunount to brify the vehicles back on the road. It is, however, made clear thaf before the Corporation is divided tnto two, the State of M.P. would aiso brlng some positlve scheme because so hiy as the Corporation is not diw'ded, it cannot be expec+ed frotn the Stafe of Chhattisgarh that they would have sorne say in the matter. Both the State Govermnents ^ in the interest of the employees of the Corporation or at least in the fnterest of their citfzens who are \. .;\."^ -cl - ^ 1, worklrg with the Road Transporf' Corporation should evolve sane scheme so that the public which elects the government may not suffer because of the bad policies either of the Corporation or of the concerned deparl-ment of the government. " 4. The matter came up for]hecring on 09.05.2001 and it was adjowned to 02.07.2001 and 06.08.2001. On 06.08.2001 both the Advocate Generals of respective States along with Officers were present and they sought slx weeks' tfme to enable the part-fes concerned of the two States to settle the matter. At the request of Shri A.S.Dhande, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and 4, further time was granted on 24.09.2001 and direction was issued regarding the payment up to month of Juty, 2001 within 15 days from the date of order. Corporation employees were also dfrected to render due co-operation. The matter came yp for furfher hearing on 22. 10. 2001 and by referring the orders dated 24.09. 2001 the partfes were reminded -\0 - ^ and were notlced and sfnce no substantlal progress was made it was directed that Chlef Secretarfes of both the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattlsgarh to go throtyh the order sheets passed in the case and should file their affidavits on or before 05.11.2001 regardlng the compliance of the orders passed by this Court and actlon taken pursuant to the orders passed. 5. On 05.11.2001. Shrl AJay Mishra, t>y. Advocate Seneral of M. P. appeared and filed the xerox copy of the affidavlt stating that origfnal was left at Jabalpw and it was ordered to be ffled and copy thereof be supplied to the other si'de. He prayed for and was granted time up to 09.11.2001. On 09.11.2001 afffdavits of Chief Secretaries of State of M. P. as well as that of Chhattisgarh have been filed and this Court had passed orders as under :- "Affidavits of the Chief Secretarles of State of Madhya Pradesh as well as that of Chhattisgarh have been filed and the same have been perused. •A -\\ - So fw as the petitioners are concerned, they undertake that fhey shall not make any agftatfon <yai'nst the M.P. StQte Road Transport Corporat/on or the State administration. However, it is made clear that if any person indutges in any agftation against efther the MPSRTC or the State administration. shall be dealt-wfth in accordance with ^* law for dfsobedience of the order of thfs Court. Havlry thus considered the facts and circwistances of the case and material available on record, it appears to be Just and proper that the Transport Secretarfes of both the States i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattlsgarh shall remain present before this £.ourt on the next date of hewlng. Chief -\'L Secretarfes of both the State may also remain present wi'th complete recwd. It is noted that In thls mafter the Secretary Sovernment of M.P. has met the Transport Minister twlce. In the cfrcwistances, it would be just and proper that the Transport Miru'sters of both the States may also remain present before thfs Courf' in case no reconclliation takes place m view of section 58(3) of the State Re- organisatlon Act, 2000 and sectfon 47-A of the State Road Transport Corporation Act. So far as salary of the employees is concerned Shri Dhande submits that for the month of July Rs.22,00,000/- hme been pafd and Rs.4.00.000/- are yet to be pai'd. ^7 \\, -\'i, - For the month of August Rs. 26,00. OOO/- wfll be required. Lst full salary fw the month of July and Aiyust. 2001 be paid wfthfn flve days from today. If there is any financial constraint, both, the State of Chhattisgarh and also Sta+e of Madhya Pradesh are obliged to consfder the recpjest for such financial assistance. The Chairman and Managing Director of the MPSRTC shall also remafn present on the next date of hearfng. Unfon of Indi'a be Joi'ned ttrough concerned Secretary and notice be issued. ) U Ust the case on 23. 11.2001. 6. On 23.11.2001. the matter came up for further heariiy and the order was passed as under :- -\^ '^one of the Secretary or anybody else is present for the State of Chhatti^arh. Shri Saharwar submits that copy of the pet/tfon has not been supplfed to h/m. Learned counsel for the petitioner Is d/rected to suppfy two copies of the petftfon dwing the cowse of the day and acknowledgement be obtained. Shri Mlshra. Z?y. A.6. for the State of M.P. subm/ts that he has filed affidwit of the Chief Secretary. He further submfts that all the docwients includiry retwn etc. have already been supplfed to the cpunsel for Union ffovt. Learned Oy. A.6. representiiy State of Q^hsl-tisgarh Is directed to suppty all the papers including retwn, -\'5- ^ affidavit etc. to the counsel for the Unlon of Indfa during the course of the day and ackmwledgement be obtalned. So far as the salary is concerned it fs stated that for July and August inonths salary of the employees of Bflaspur Divfsion is pafd. So far as Ra/pur and other div/s/ons are concerned, if the salary is not pald, efforts be made to pay the salary of the months of Juty and August 11117.12. 2001. Shrf Shrivastava undertakes to flle list of the employees of Bilaspur, Rafpw and other dlvisions of State of Chhattisgarh. Let all the members of the Uruon to fi'le thefr details like place of posting, post on which they are workiry along with photograph. •* "^ ^lfe- ^l Raipur blvision be also jolned as party in this petitfon, slnce it is a public fnterest petitlon. Shrt Shrlvastava submits that the employees / workers we faclng hardshfp, some times they fell sick and one Jafram died facing the hardship. If any such case come in the light, the same shall be referred to the Collector concerned who shall provide medlcal afd. So far as nona^appearance of the officers of the State of Chhattisgarh Is concerned, it requires explanation from each of them and aff/davft to that effectbe also filed till the next date of hearing. The Secretary and officers of the State of Chhattlsgarh who were dfrected to remain present, shail remain present on the next date of -\1 hearing. So far as presence of Secretary and ofher officers of the State of Madhya Pradesh are concerned they may appew on rhe next date of heariry. The dispute is such which may be resofved by the two states. It is submftted that the State of Madhya Pradesh has already moved for bifwcation. the scheme has been prepared and has been submitted to the Central Sovernment. The cablnet ^- & sub-commlttee of the cabinet of State of Chhattlsgarh have to decide. There should be no difficulty in taklng decision. So far as this Courf is concerned suffice it to say that there should be no dffficulty in taktng decislon and ft may be taken at the eorliest possible. If is stated that the Chlef Secretary of both the \^ •^ State have taken up the matter. The Advocate General of both the States to co-ordinate. The progress regardffy process of bifurcatfon and declsion taken if any shall be submitted to this Court on the next date of hear/ng. Since ft fs reported that tearned Solicitor 6eneral is comiig on 7' December 2001 in some other case, thls case be also listed on fhat day. Liston 7.12.2001." 7. Pursuant to the orders passed by thfs Court on 23.11.2001 this case was taken up today. Counsel for the parl-ies have been heard at length. 8. The petition was filed at Jabalpur and thereafter applfcations for amendment have also been filed. Subsequent events have taken place. 9. Shrl A. S. Dhande, learned counsel appearirg for the respondents No.3 and 4 further subinitted that after formatlon new State of Chhattisgarh the .A-s .\ct Corporatfon also felt difficultles. It fs alleged by him that proper co-operation is not being extended by the officials as well as certafn routes are closed. The Corpwation has also made varlous appllcattons. They also raised thefr grievances whlch have arisen subsequent to the bifwcatfon of the State. Shri A.G. Dhande, learned counsel appearirg for respondents 3 and 4 st^mitl-ed that State Road Transport Corporatlon is not getting proper co-operation from the State Authorities to strengthen I'ts financial cond/tion and fwther that bcal adtninistration has prohfblted the plying of buses throtyh the orlginal route which passes before the High Court and the respondents are compelled to ply their buses by adopting circuitous route resulting in addit/onal plyiry of 18 klms per trip per bus which causes addftional burden over already sick Transport Corporation. It is stated by the counsel for ths respondents 3 and 4 that licensed Maxi Cabs owners who pty fn the nationalized roiftes as per permit given by the state Sovernment also ply frorn Bus stand and as per discussion wlth the Oeputy Commissfofier, Transport of - Z-c> - the State it was decided that separate Bus Stand for Mwa' Cabs would be provided and the Maxi Cabs owners would nat be permftted to ply from the Bus stand. However, this decfston was not implemented r'esultfry in huge loss to the Corporation. He further submitted that the local administr'ation and the Transport Commissioner be dfrected to allow the Corporation buses to pty throigh the orlginal route and the ffiaxi Cabs be restrained from operat/ry from the Bus stand. 10. After formation of the State new situations have arlsen and the Court- has also passed certain orders frow tfme to tlme. The State of Madhya Pradesh has already created fts own Corporatlon at Bhopal and for creation of the same In Chhattisgarh State the matter has been placed before the Cabinet and some decislon has to be taken by the State of Chhattisgarh for the scune. 11. In thfs view of the matter it would be Just and proper to give an opportunity to the petftloners to ffle the petition afresh Incorporating all the subsequent events if they so desire. So far as salary part Ss - •2-\ concerned the persons who are workiig In the State of Chhattisgarh in different depots should be pald their salary r^ularly. While dlsbwslng salary to the employees if there is any dffffculty the Chief Secretaries of both the States may sit together and sort out the matter effectively. At this steye we can onty say that the matter should be resolved at the State level Itself. Both the State shall look into the matter and the advocate Senerafs as well as Chief Secretaries of concerned Departments of both the State shall take necessary steps in that direction. It would be fitness of thirys that the matter should be resolved at the State level and efforts should be made for the same. 12. Havliy gfven thoughtful consideration we of the opfnion that so far as salary part of Bilaspur, Raipw and other depots are concerned the orders have been passed from time to tfme by this Court and suitable gwdelines have been issued. In vfew of the developments which have taken place, it is Just and proper to give opportunity to the petitfoner to file afresh petftion Z2- - raislng all the tfuestions if they so desire. The Corporation may also ffle such petftion which ft wants to file. The MPSRTC may also flle suftable applicatfon. Parties to thfs petition are also at llberty to flle suftable applicatfons, if they so desire. 13. Before parting we have mentfoned that the matters llke this, it is always better that the dlsputes are resolved by mutual co-operation of both the ^ States. Such disputes Ifke present one can be resolved by Transport Secretarles or the Chief Secretaries of both the respective Sfates. The Advocate Genwals of both the respectfve States may also render due co- operation. 14. Shri Kirit N. Rawal, learned addltional Solicitor General of Indfa submltted that if they fail, and if both the States are not in a position to resolve the matter and if the occasion arlses or the Government of both the States makes request In that regard, the Central Government would look tnto the matter in accordance with law. ''S, -2-'?,- • £ 15. Havlng considered the facts and circwistances of the case and perused the materfal available on record fncludfng the retwns and rejolnders duly supporfed by affldmits, »edfspose of th/s petlti'on at this stage wlth the above d/rections and observations. However, the pet/tfoners shall be at Itberty to agltate their grievance, // any, afresh before the compefent authority if they so deslre and the docwients, if any, filed may be retwned after photo stat copfes of the same are placed on record. Certified photocopy to all the part/es free of cost. ^ Sd/-~ Chief Justice Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge •'.'f.'f