No Disciplinary Inquiry Needed To Strike BEST Badli Driver Off Panel For Excessive Demerit Points; No Right To Permanently Remain On Panel: Bombay High Court
The Court set aside Industrial Court order directing BEST to reinstate substitute driver; held Standing Order No. 26 permits termination with 24 hours' notice without full inquiry.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) is not required to hold a full-fledged departmental inquiry before removing a badli (substitute) driver from its panel for accumulating demerit points due to unauthorized absence.
The Court observed that badli workers are casual/substitute employees engaged temporarily to meet exigencies when regular drivers or conductors are absent. They do not enjoy a guaranteed right to employment or continuous service, and their names are not borne on the regular muster rolls.
The Bench set aside an Industrial Court order that had directed BEST to reinstate a badli driver with 50% backwages, restoring the original decision of the Labour Court which upheld the undertaking's action.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “…he was merely a Badli Driver with no promise of employment. As a Badli Driver he was required to report for duties every day at the Depot and wait for deployment. While the Badli Drivers were provided the incentive in the form of retainer allowance (in case of non-assignment of duties), the Petitioner-BEST had not left the attendance at the whims of Badli Drivers. Non-attendance by requisite number of Badli Drivers or Conductors was also affecting the operation of large bus fleet. Therefore, to imbibe a sense of discipline amonst the Badli Drivers, the Petitioner had implemented the Scheme of awarding demerit points to them. Any Badli Driver not reporting for duties at the Depot was to be construed as non-interested party for working as Badli Driver. His name therefore could be removed from the panel so that someone else interested in working as Badli Driver can be included in the panel. No right was created in favour of any person to permanently remain on the panel as a Badli Driver”.
“…a Badli Driver/Conductor do not have any guaranteed right of employment. Their names are not included in the muster rolls of the establishment. Even though a Badli Driver/Conductor could be engaged in the absence of regular Drivers/Conductors, he/she cannot claim assignment of work as a matter of right. Badli workers are ultimately a form of casual employees having no right to insist on assignment of work”, the Bench noted.
Advocate Mahesh Shukla appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ketan Dhavle appeared for the respondent.
The matter arose when Respondent No. 1, empanelled as a badli bus driver in June 2011, remained repeatedly absent between August 2011 and February 2012. Under BEST's Departmental Circular of June 27, 1975, which established a demerit point system to track badli performance, the driver accumulated 25 demerit points (exceeding the threshold of 20). Consequently, BEST struck his name off the badli register in February 2012.
The Industrial Court had ruled in favor of the driver, holding that Standing Order No. 26 (permitting termination of badlis with 24 hours' notice) could only be invoked after completing a formal inquiry under Standing Order No. 23 for misconduct.
Correcting this approach, the High Court held that disciplinary inquiries for misconduct and termination under Standing Order No. 26 operate in distinct spheres. Since termination is not an enumerated punishment under Standing Order No. 21, BEST was entitled under Standing Order No. 26 to remove a badli worker having less than two years of service by providing 24 hours' written notice without conducting a departmental inquiry.
The Bench further found no conflict between the 1975 Circular and the Certified Standing Orders, noting that the demerit system ensures transparency and fairness rather than arbitrariness. Finding that the driver failed to prove 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year, the High Court allowed BEST's writ petition.
Cause Title: The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BEST Undertaking) v. Mr. Vidat Ashok Sonawane & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2016).
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mahesh Shukla, Heena Shaikh, Siddhikesh Shinde (instructed by M.V. Kini & Co.).
Respondent: Ketan Dhavle, Advocate.