ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. This appeal by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 3949 of 1990 whereby he directed that the employees of the Leather Garment unit of the State Trading Corporation, whose services were terminated on the closure of the unit, shall be continued in service by the Government of India (Respondent 3 in the writ petition) on the same terms and conditions either in the government departments or tn the government corporations within three months. In passing this order, the learned Single Judge based his decision on this Courts order in G. Govinda Rajulu v. A. P State Construction Corpn. Ltd. [l956 Supp SCC 651 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 71] in which this Court made a brief order in these terms : (SCC p. 651, paras 1-2) h

"1. We have carefully considered the matter and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the employees of the a Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited whose services were sought to be terminated on account of the closure of the Corporation shall be continued in service on the same terms and conditions either in the government departments or in the government corporations.

2. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs."

3. This order of the learned Single Judge came to be affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

4. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Government of India contended that the Leather Garment unit was an establishment of the State Trading Corporation and the workmen were employed by that Corporation and not by the Government of India and, therefore, the workmen of the State Trading Corporation could not claim employment with the Government of India or in any Corporation or Undertaking of the Government of India. It was contended by the third respondent - Government of India that it was for the State Trading Corporation to deal with the problem of non-employment of the petitioners and not the Government of India. These contentions are borne out from para 5 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Para 6 of the judgment shows that the High Court without deciding on the question whether any such direction could be issued against the Government of India proceeded to conclude the matter on the basis of the aforementioned decision of this Court. The decision of this Court is virtually a non-speaking order which does not set out the facts and the circumstances in which the direction came to be issued against the Government. It is not clear as to what was the connection between the respondent-Corporation and the State Government. In the present case the Government of India had clearly averred that it had nothing to do with the State Trading Corporation and there was no elationship r of master and servant between the petitioners and the Government of India and, therefore, the Government of India was not in any manner concerned with the closure of the Leather Garment unit of the State Trading Corporation and the consequences thereof. Mr Usgaocar rightly emphasised that the decision on which the High Court had relied could not be treated as a precedent and in support of this contention he drew our attention to a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Krishena Kumar v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112 (1990) 14 ATC 846 AIR 1990 SC 1782 JT (1990) 3 SC 173]. In paras 18 and 19 the question as to when a decision can have binding effect has been dealt with. We need say no more as it is obvious from the decision relied on that it does not set out the facts or the reason for the conclusion or direction given. It can, therefore, not be treated as a binding precedent.

5. In the absence of any relation having been established of master and servant between the Government of India and the employees it is obvious that no such direction could h