HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DEEP NARAYAN SINHA, ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE
SUNIL KUMAR DEBNATH - Appellant
Versus
MINING AND ALLIED MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. - Respondent
. Of .
Decided On : May 30, 1967
WRIT JURISDICTION - GOVERNMENT COMPANY - WRIT APPLICATION - MAINTAINABILITY - PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY - EMPLOYEES - CIVIL SERVANTS - ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, who were recruited by the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. for its Coal Mining Machinery Project, were absorbed into the respondent company, Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd., a government company, after the project was taken over by the latter. The appellants challenged the absorption list and the promotion list prepared by the respondent, alleging discrimination and violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the application on the ground that the respondent was neither the Government nor a statutory body and, therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the application was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution as the respondent was a government company and not a public utility company. The Court further held that the employees of a government company are not civil servants and are not entitled to the protection offered by Article 311 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution lies against a government company? 2. Whether the employees of a government company are civil servants and entitled to the protection offered by Article 311 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution does not lie against a government company as it is a private individual and not a public utility company. 2. The employees of a government company are not civil servants and are not entitled to the protection offered by Article 311 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order passed by Banerjee, J. on the 16th February, 1966 for a Rule summarily, on the ground that the respondent appeared to be a Government company which is neither the Government nor a statutory body and so, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The learned Judge relied on his own judgment in Prafulla Kumar Sen v. Calcutta State Transport Corporation, AIR 1963 Cal 116 and refused to issue a Rule and dismissed the application. Before us, on the 19th of December, 1966 learned Advocate for all parties agreed that it would merely protract matters if we sent the case back to the court below for issuing a rule, but the more desirable course would be to allow the parties to file affidavits and then decide the matter on the merits. This was done, and we have heard the matter on the merits. The facts which have emerged are as follows: In the application, there were three petitioners, who are now the appellants before us. The respondent is the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Limited, Durgapur. In 1962 the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. a Government company, in its coal Mining Machinery project started recruiting candidates with a view to meet the initial requirements of trained and experienced workers/operators in the plant when it sent into production. Accordingly, 122 candidates were recruited. The way that the recruitment was done was as follows: An offer was made by the Administrative Officer on behalf of the Coal Mining Machinery Project of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. of the nature set out in annexure 'a' to the petition, copy whereof is set out at pages 9 to 12 of the paper book. Candidates who accepted the offer, executed bonds of the nature as set out in annexure 'b' to the petition, copy whereof is set out at pages 21 to 22 of the paper book. The workers recruited were given different scales of pay depending on their qualification, experience and performance at the interview which took place at the time of selection. The scales were as follows: 1. Rs. 110-143 (Revised)2. Rs. 140-175 ( ? )3. Rs. 150-240 ( ? )while most of the workers obtained practical training on the job in the project, some were also sent to Chittaranjan Locomotive Works for practical training, in such skills or trades for which facilities were not available at the said project at that time. Some of these Workers were also sent to U. S. S. R. for training. During the later part of 1963, when production had initially started, all assessment of these workers operators were made by committees formed by the Project, and they were absorbed in regular production in different scales of pay on the basis of qualification experience and performance. 29 only were retained in their existing scales of pay as they did not fulfill the requisite specification of qualification and experience required for higher scales. They were, however, subsequently absorbed in the regular production establishment in due course on their acquiring the required skill and experience. It is at this time that the list described as an absorption list? in the petition, was made out. Absorption was made in the way mentioned above.
( 2 ) THE respondent company, namely the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. of Durgapur is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 as a private limited company, shares of which are owned by the President of India and his nominees. In 1965 this company was incorporated and took over the Coal Mining Machinery Project of the said Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. It will, therefore, appear that the absorption was made in different scales of pay on the assessment of the qualification, experience and performance of the workers by a special committee. In fact, clause (iii) of the offer of appointment accepted by the petitioners contains the following paragraph: after satisfactory completion of training depending upon the ability displayed during training, you will be off
Suprasad Mukherjee v. State Bank of India
Dr.Sudhir Chandra Neogy v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd.
Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. v. Shreepatirao
REFERRED TO : Prafulla Kumar Sen v. Calcutta State Transport Corporation
Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd.
Subodh Ranjan Ghosh v. Sindri Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd.
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.