Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, falls within the ambit of powers exercised under List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Consequently, special appeals filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, arising from the exercise of powers by a single judge under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by appellate/revisional authority under the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, are maintainable. This ruling emerged from a full bench decision comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta, and Justice Vikas Budhwar.

The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) was constituted by the State Government under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. In this case, the appellant, a conductor, was removed from service. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Regional Manager, UPSRTC. A subsequent revision before the Chairman, UPSRTC, was also dismissed. The appellant then approached the High Court, where his writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of an alternate remedy. This led him to file a special appeal before a division bench of the High Court.

The respondent challenged the maintainability of the special appeal, citing a previous division bench judgment in UPSRTC through RM vs. Abhai Raj Singh. However, the appellant contended that the special appeal was maintainable since the power exercised was under a Central Act, the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. This contention was supported by prior decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Jageshwar Prasad Tiwari vs. UPSRTC and Others and Madan Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others. The division bench, doubting the correctness of the Abhai Raj Singh judgment, referred the matter to a larger bench for consideration.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant argued that the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, is a Central Act enacted under Entries 43 and 44 of List I, which includes incorporation, regulation, and winding up of corporations. He maintained that the Regulations under which the powers were exercised derive their authority from this Central Act. Therefore, the special appeal is maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules.

The respondent countered that the Act of 1950 was enacted under Entries 22 and 24 of List III, which pertain to trade unions, industrial and labor disputes, and welfare schemes for labor. Hence, the respondent argued that the special appeal was not maintainable as the relevant powers fall within the Concurrent List.

Court’s Judgment:

The full bench, led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, examined the scope of special appeals against orders of a single judge and the legislative intent behind the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the court determined that the main object of the Act is the incorporation and regulation of Road Transport Corporations, which falls under Entries 43 and 44 of List I. The court noted that incidental encroachment on matters within the Concurrent List does not alter the primary nature of the legislation.

The court emphasized that the power to legislate on the regulation of corporations inherently includes regulating the workforce, which is essential for the corporation’s functioning. The provisions of Section 45(2)(c), allowing the corporation to make regulations concerning employee conditions, do not shift the Act’s categorization to the Concurrent List.

The full bench referred to various Supreme Court judgments and previous decisions of the Allahabad High Court. The court concluded that the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, was enacted under the Union List. Therefore, special appeals against orders passed by officers or authorities under the Regulations framed under this Act are maintainable.

As a result, the full bench overruled the judgment in UPSRTC through RM vs. Abhai Raj Singh to the extent that it held such special appeals non-maintainable. The court held that intra-court appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against a single judge’s judgment in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are maintainable.