Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
K. B. N. SINGH. & UDAY SINHA, J.
Ram Nath Giri & Others - Petitioners.
Vrs.
Union of India & Others - Respondents.
C. W. J. C. Nos. 1433 of 1972 and 519 & 520 of 1973.
Decided on : 21.6.1976
Held, that where statutory body is constituted its purposes are what is laid down in the four corners of the Statute. In view of the statutory provisions of the Act, any statement by the Manager of the corporation giving out a different purpose for the constitution of the force would not invalidate its constitution. When the purpose for constitution of a body or force is referrable to the statute under which it is constituted, then that alone will be its purpose for constitution. The Force constituted under the Act, is the Central Industrial Security Force meant for employment throughout the country for the purpose envisaged in the Act, and not for any particular industrial undertaking. (para 8)
Constitution of India-Art 19 (1) (g) Central Industrial Security Force Act, whether hit by Art. 19 (1) (g).
Held, that the restriction, if any, imposed upon the petitioners by the Act, can hardly be said to be unreasonable. The alleged restriction, if any, is reasonable and necessary in public interest. Neither any provision of the Act, or the Central Industrial Security Force Rules 1969 puts any restriction on the petitioners' right to carryon a profession of their choice. There is no Fundamental Right of any personnel of being employed by a particular master. The rights, if any, created by any Statute or Statutory Rules, are not Fundamental Rights.
The Statute being the basis of those rights, they come into existence by virtue of the Statute and disappear by the repeal or modification of such rights by a Statute.
(Para 9).
Central Industrial Security Force Act, Sec. 3-Centrallndustrial Security Force Rules 1969-Rules I5-No conflict between the option or agreement and any Statute or Statutory Rules-Absorption in Central Industrial Security Force not invalid-Nor there is any in validity in exercise of option and execution of the agreement and the letter of appointment -Even if there is Some discrepancy between what was promised and what has been allowed to the employees as their pay and allowances shall not invalidate the option-Ex-employees would be entitled to full implementation.
(Para 11)
Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969-Rules 15-Constitution of India Art. 311-Appointment on probation-The service condition are to be determined by the terms and conditions of appointment and by the Rules and regulations on the subject-Assurance given by deputy Inspector General of the Force to tag the. service of the petitioners in the Corporation can not override the rules-The tagging was only for the purpose of fixation of pay and rank-Rule providing for termination during probation on issue of notice – Rules laid down before each house pf parliament and hence are statutory Rules - No inconsistency between the Rules - Termination of service of probationers in terms or contract or agreement of employment-Termination simpliciter - No sigma Art. 311 of the Constitution not attracted.
(Paras 24 to 26).
K. B. N. Singh
These three writ petitions, which involve common questions of law and facts, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common, order.
2. In C. W. J. C. 1433 of 1972 petitioner Ramnath Giri and nineteen other petitioners, the erstwhile employees of the Uranium Corporation of India Limited and who after having opted, were employed as members of the Central Industrial Security Force, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated the 2nd/7th September, 1972 (Annexure 5f1) appointing them as members of the Central Industrial Security Force. A prayer has been made for issuance of necessary direction to the authorities to Act, in accordance with law. By a supplementary petition the petitioners have sought to challenge the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, under which the Central Industrial Security Force has been constituted, as ultra vires of Articles 14, 16 and 19 (I) (g) of the Constitution. In the other two writ petitions, which are by individual workers, Baijnath Singh and Ramnath Giri, the prayer is for quashing of the order of termination of their service from the Central Industrial security Force, a copy of which has been filed in each writ application as annexure 10.
C.W.J.C. 1433 of 1972.
3. The petitioners in this writ application were employed in the Fire Service Branch of the Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Respondent no 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') for its Mills at Jaduguda in the district of Singhbhum. Petitioners no. 1 to 4 were employed as 'Leading Firemen', petitioners no. 5 to 7 were employed as 'Fire Engine Drivers-cum-Operators and the remaining petitioners were 'Firemen'.
4. On the 2nd December, 1968 the Central Parliament passed an Act, called the Central Industria1 Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and the said Act, after being assented to by the President became effective from the 10th. March, 1969. The Act, provided for constitution and regulation of a force called the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF') for the better protection and security of Government industrial undertakings as defined under section' (1) of the Act, and for its deputation to other industrial undertakings in public sector under the circumstances laid down in section 14.
5. The petitioners' case is that the Corporation is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, and it is a Government of India enterprise and is an industrial undertaking in public sector within the meaning of section 2 (I) (c) of the Act, which means an industrial undertaking owned, controlled or managed by a Government Company, as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, or a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, which is controlled or managed by the Government.
6. It is the common case of the petitioners in all the writ applications that on the 21st of April, 1972, the petitioners were informed by the Corporation by a notice (Annexure 1) that the Central Government had decided to constitute an Industrial Security Force for the Corporation and the work relating to Fire Service would he transferred to CISF in May 1972 and also asked the petitioners to exercise their option latest by the 8th May, 1972. It was also stated in the said notice that those who would not apply for absorption in the CISF would not be retained by the corporation and would be deemed to have decided to leave the service of the Corporation and that such employees would be relieved and paid retrenchment compensation according to Jaw. It was also stated therein that for those who would apply for absorption but could not be so absorbed in the CISF on account of physical disability or for reasons beyond the applicants control, the Corporation would try to offer them appropriate position outside the range of security duty in anyone of the establishments of the Corporation and the scales o
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
