JUDGMENT - A.Y. SAKHARE, J.:---By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for directions to the respondent No. 4 that respondent No. 4 should pay bonus to its employees as per the circulars issued by Government of India from time to time.

2. The respondent No. 4 has filed affidavit in reply dated 22-10-1997 stating therein that the respondent No. 4 is not a State or instrumentality or agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 4 has, thus, raised issue of maintainability of this writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. Dharap, advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rele, advocate for the respondent No. 4. By placing reliance upon decision of the Apex Court in (Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others)1, reported in 1989(2) Supreme Court Cases 691, it is contended that the respondent No. 4 is a State instrumentality or agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Submission is made that in view of Rule 32(a) of the Rules, the Central Government has full control over the management of the respondent No. 4 and/or management of the respondent No. 4 rests with the Central Government. It is further submitted that the respondent is substantially funded by the Central Government. Hence it is instrumentality or agency of the State. The petitioners further submitted that as the respondent No. 4 is discharging public duties, this Court can issue writ/direction against the respondent No. 4 as prayed for.

4. On behalf of the respondents, material is placed on record regarding the constitution, functioning and management of the respondent No. 4 and it is contended that the respondent No. 4 is not an instrumentality or agency of the State nor the respondent No. 4 is discharging or performing public duties. By placing reliance on decision of Full Bench of this Court in (The Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another v. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat and another)2, reported in 1993(1) Mh.L.J. 1 and the decisions of the Apex Court in (Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and others)3, reported in A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 1329, (Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India and others)4, reported in 1988(1) Supreme Court Cases 236 and (Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational Research and Training and others)5, reported in 1991(4) Supreme Court Cases, 578, it is contended that the respondent No. 4 is not the instrumentality or agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. The respondent No. 4 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Leading captains of the man-made textile industry found the need for founding a research organisation and mooted the proposal for a co-operative research organisation for the industry, where the Government and the industry could co-operate. In the General Body meeting dated 26-5-1948, Silk and Art Silk Mills Association Ltd. passed resolution to establish a research institute for silk, rayon and allied products in India with the help of Central Government. Rs. 20 lakhs was the amount provided by the said association and the funds were to be raised by levy on the landed cost of rayon yarn imported, by members contribution, by subscription fees, testing fees, income from techno-economic services, technical service charges, income from instruments, income from journals, bulletins, publications and training courses so also grant received from the Ministry of Textiles. Pursuant to the said resolution, the respondent No. 4 came to be registered on 12-1-1950 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Rs. 45 lakhs were received at the time of registration through contribution from the establishments engaged in man-made textile industry and Rs. 15 lakhs f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document