IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
B. Sankara Rao – Petitioner
Versus
Ministry Of Surface Transport and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.15762 Of 2017, 16652 and 16846 Of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2023
Mandamus - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Section 25F of the I.D. Act - Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool - Visakhapatnam Port Trust - Major Port Trust Act - Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, engaged by Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool, sought relief against the termination of their services by the respondent. The court analyzed the maintainability of the writ petition against a private organization and the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable against the Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool as it was not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioners failed to establish that the respondent was established to achieve a collective benefit for the public or had authority accepted by the public to do so. The court also rejected the contention that the respondent was an industry and the petitioners were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition against a private organization and the determination of whether the respondent qualified as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a writ of mandamus can only be granted against the State and its instrumentalities. It further emphasized that to seek a writ of mandamus against a private body, the petitioners must prove that the body was established to achieve a collective benefit for the public and was accepted by the public as having authority to do so. The court also clarified the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act and the requirements for an entity to be considered as such.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as they were not maintainable against the Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the respondent to settle their claims.
ORDER :
1. All these petitions are filed claiming same relief by different petitioners, but the issue involved in these petitions is one and the same. Therefore, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide all the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.15762 of 2017 as leading petition.
2. W.P. No.15762 of 2017 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Visakhapatnam Port Trust – respondent No.2 herein, is a statutory body incorporated under the Major Port Trust Act and that the Cargo Handling Division – respondent No.3 herein, which was previously known as Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board functioning under Dock Workers (for short “VDLB”) functioning under Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. The said Statute was repealed in the year 2010 and the Dock Labour Board was merged in respondent No.2’s organization, but is called as Cargo Handling Division. There was a Registered Scheme of 1959 and an unregistered scheme of 1968 in VDLB, through which the workers were engaged for the operations on the ships. Whenever the Stevedoring Companies place indents on the DLB for clearing the ships, the DLB will engage its workers for the said purpose.
4. While so, after the Thermal Coal Handling Operations in the Visakhapatnam Port is introduced in the year 1985, the requirement of labour has increased tremendously. To overcome the situation, VDLB has sought permission of respondent No.1 herein to engage private labour, for which permission has been accorded to VDLB vide letter dated 06.03.1985, to engage private labour to the extent of short supply of Dock Labour Board (for short “DLB”), subject to the condition that the private labour shall be engaged only after the entire available labour of DLB are engaged. After receipt of said permission, the engagement of private labour in the works of VDLB was started. Thereafter, in May, 1992, the Trade Unions in VDLB have gone on strike, demanding the employment of the children of the deceased employees and medically unfit employees, which has resulted in a settlement entered between the Trade Union, the Stevedoring Companies and the Visakhapatnam Clearing and Forwarding Agents. In the said settlement, it was agreed that a system of streamlining the procedure of employment of private labour would be evolved, but, however, the same could not be implemented immediately. But, in June, 1993, it was agreed to form a pool for regulating the employment of the private labour. As such, the Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool – respondent No.4 herein, has come into existence on 24.12.1993, with the following objects:
(b) Through jointly promote the welfare of the workers and who are identified and enrolled in the Trust.
(c) To utilize the funs of the Trust for the above purpose and also for other charitable purposes such as Education, Health, Sports and Elevation of sufferings of the poor and the needy, etc.
(d) To carry out the public utility activities within the meaning of charitable purposes as defined in the Income Tax Act.
5. Respondent No.4 Pool was established on 19.01.1994 as a public trust by the Visakhapatnam Stevedors Association and Visakhapatnam Clearing a
Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Amalapuram Vs. N.Seetharama Raju
Ramakrishna Mission Vs. Kago Kunya
Binny Ltd. and Ors. Vs. V.Sadasivan
Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Writ petitions are not maintainable against private bodies unless they are discharging public functions; a limited membership does not imply such status.
For a private body to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction, it must be discharging public functions akin to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity.
The termination of employees without notice and for participating in a strike against the 12-hour work schedule was arbitrary and in violation of Article 23(1) of the Constitution of India and the Bo....
The court upheld the entitlement of petitioners to permanent employment status under the Tamil Nadu Permanent Status Act after completing 480 days of service, highlighting the necessity of adhering t....
The Labour Court's determination that a sham contract exists may classify workers as employees of the principal employer, thereby validating their claims for service conditions and protections under ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.