HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. N. Sinha
S. K. MUKHERJEE - Appellant
Versus
CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS, EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL - Respondent
Matter 283 Of 1960
Decided On : JULY 31, 1961
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311 - PUBLIC BODY OR PUBLIC AUTHORITY - CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL - NOT A PUBLIC BODY OR PUBLIC AUTHORITY - EMPLOYEE NOT A CIVIL SERVANT - ARTICLE 311 NOT APPLICABLE - WRIT NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was employed as a stenographer by the 'Chemicals and Allied Products Export Promotion Council' and was dismissed from service without being given an opportunity of being heard. He challenged the order of dismissal, contending that it violated the rules of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Chemicals and Allied Products Export Promotion Council was not a public body or a public authority, and therefore the petitioner was not a civil servant entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Consequently, the court held that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Issues: Whether the Chemicals and Allied Products Export Promotion Council was a public body or a public authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Chemicals and Allied Products Export Promotion Council was not a public body or a public authority because it was a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and the Central Government's exercise of certain powers over the Council did not make it a public body or a public authority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not a civil servant entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and that the Chemicals and Allied Products Export Promotion Council was not a public body or a public authority.
( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner was employed as a stenographer by the 'chemicals and Allied Products Export Promotion Council' some time in March 1959. The letter of appointment is dated 26th March, 1959, copy whereof is Annexure A-1 to the petition. It will show that the appointment was to be governed by the service rules of the Council as might be enforced from time to time. The petitioner was to be on probation for a Period of six months. He was confirmed in service on or about 18th May, 1. 960 with effect from 1st May, 1960. On the 1st November, 1960 he received a letter from the Secretary of the said Council, copy whereof is Annexure A-3 to the petition. It is stated in the letter that the petitioner's services were no longer required by the Council and would stand terminates with effect from 2nd November, 1960. He was to be paid Rs. 270/-, being one month's salary in lieu of a month's notice of termination of service. The petitioner made a representation against this order to the Secretary. He has, however, received the one month's salary which was offered. Thereafter, as the order was not withdrawn, he has made this application and has appeared at the hearing personally. The point that he has taken is that the Secretary, or as it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition, the Chairman of the Council, had no right to dismiss the petitioner, and in any event he was not given any opportunity of being heard in his defence, and the order of dismissal was passed in violation of the rules of natural justice and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The respondents have taken a preliminary point that this application under Article 226 does not He at all, because the respondent Council is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and is neither a public body nor a public authority, and the petitioner is not a civil servant within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In order to decide this point, I have, first of all to look into the Memorandum and Articles' of Association of this company. It appears therefrom that "the Chemicals and Allied Products Export Promotion Council'' is a company limited by guarantee, incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The memorandum has been signed by eight persons who seem to be connected with companies or associations concerning the manufacture of chemicals and allied products, as also the export thereof. The object of the company is, inter alia, to support, maintain and increase exports of chemical, pharmaceutical and other allied products. There is no doubt that in many ways the Central Government exercises a degree of control. For example, under Article 7 of the Articles of Association, four officials are nominated by Government as members of the Council. The auditors may be appointed by the Central Government, whose remuneration shall be fixed by the Council with the concurrence of the Union Government. The, Articles provide for the appointment of a committee, and one of the functions of the committee is to control the staff of the Council, and to make, alter and repeal bye-laws which may be deemed necessary for the proper conduct and management of the Council, Article 27 provides that there should be a Secretary, and such other officers to the Council as may be determined from time to time by the Council. Under Article 28, the Secretary shall perform all the business and affairs of the Council. Now, the question is whether a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act can be construed as a public body or a public authority, simply because the Central Government exercises certain, powers as conferred by the Memorandum and Articles of Association. The petitioner who has appeared personally and argued his case has referred me to Article 12 of the Constitution. That article provides that unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "the State" includes the Government and
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.