SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Bom) 687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dr. B.P. Saraf A.Y. Sakhare, JJ.
Vishnu Dattatraya Redekar others ..... Petitioners.
Versus
The Director Nehru Centre others ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1744 of 1997, decided on 15-12-1997.
Advocates appeared :
C.U. Singh with S.R. Pandey i/b. Sanjay Udeshi Co., for the petitioners.
Ms. N.S. Vengsarkar with T.R. Yadav, for the respondent No. 1.

Headnote:Article 12-Direct Control of Executive Committee-Control over funds and financial activities-Consideration of Society as a State-Not proper.

       Articles 12 and 226-See Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971, Section 2(1)(a).

       Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

       Section 2(1)(a)-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(a)-Constitution of India, Articles 12 and 226--Employees of security guards An autonomous body financed by Central Government-Engaged in security of Nehru Centre-Sought direction to be considered as employees of Central Government-It being appropriate Government-Held-Constitution of Centre under management of centre only-Cannot be formed as State-High Court has no writ jurisdiction.-By reading the memorandum of association and the rules and regulations of the association, it is clear that the respondent No. 1 is independent and autonomous body and its affairs are looked after by the executive committee elected as per the constitution and rules. The respondent No. 1 has its own financial resources and funds. The respondent No. 1 is not under the control of Central Government for Central Government is the appropriate Government in respect of the respondent No. 1 for the purposes of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971 or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Considering the law laid down by this Court and by the Supreme Court referred the respondent No. 1 being autonomous body cannot be declared as a State or instrumentality or agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the respondent No. 1 will not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

       Section 2(a)-See Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971, Section 2(1)(a).

JUDGMENT - A.Y. SAKHARE, J.:---By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for declaration that there exists relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 and that the respondent No. 1 be declared as direct employer of the security guards as per the list at Ex. 'A' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners have also prayed for injunction against the respondent No. 1 from terminating the services of the security guards.

2. As per petitioners, the respondent No. 1 is an appropriate Government for the purposes of the notification dated 9-12-1976 issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation Abolition) Act, 1971. As per the petitioners, in view of this notification, the respondent No. 1 is prohibited from employing contract labours for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of building owned by the establishment in respect of which Central Government is the owner. As per the petitioners, as per definition of the 'appropriate Government' as amended in 1986 under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation Abolition) Act, 1971 and as per the definition of the said term as it appears in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government is the appropriate Government in respect of the respondent No. 1, hence, the respondent No. 1 be prohibited from employing contract labours for watching over building owned and occupied by it.

3. Mr. Sumendra P. Verma, Joint Director (Maintenance) of the respondent No. 1 has filed his affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent No. 1. In affidavit-in-reply, plea of maintainability of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is not a State or instrumentality or agency of the State is raised. It is also submitted that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government in respect of the respondent No. 1 for the purposes of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation Abolition) Act, 1971 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. In affidavit-in-reply, details about the respondent No. 1 such as its constitution, functioning and management are given. The Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the respondent No. 1 are also annexed to this affidavit. The respondent No. 1 is registered as a society under provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as a Public Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The objects for which the respondent No. 1 is established are as under :

"(a) To inculcate and promote new social values, secularism, and national integration and spread a humane, self-reliant and rational outlook on life.

(b) To perpetuate the memory of late Shri Jawaharlal Nehru by undertaking educational, social, cultural, medical relief and other charitable activities for the welfare of children, and especially weaker sections of the community.

(c) To promote the cause of education, art, culture and communal harmony and to undertake scientific, statistical and other research in social and other sciences and technology for the advancement and emancipation of our countrymen.

(d) To diffuse useful knowledge relating to Nehru's ideals and philosophy and the aims and objects of the society by means of oral instructions, publication of literature and holding dramatic competitions, exhibitions and demonstrations on no profit basis calculated to advance and achieve the above objects.

(e) Doing all such other lawful things as are incidental to the attainment of the above objects."

5. The executive committee of the respondent No. 1 has complete and direct control over the activities of the respondent No. 1. As per Rule -2 of the Rules, any person is eligible to be elected as ordinary member and persons who have rendered distinguished services to the respondent No. 1 can be elected as honorary members. Discretion sole








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top