Back
2000 Supreme(Cal) 224
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Barin Ghosh, J.
Seikh Aminuddin & Anr...Appellants
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ......Respondents
W. P. No. 15841 (W) of 1999
Decided On : May 3, 2000
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Soumya Majumdfr ......for the Appellants
Mr. A. Ghosh and S. Sil ......for the Indian Oil Corporation
Mr. Anadi Baran Chatterjee and M. Sarkar......for the Respondents
A promise of employment to land losers made by the State Government or an instrumentality of the State is illegal and unenforceable if it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality in matters of employment.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - REHABILITATION PACKAGE - EMPLOYMENT TO LAND LOSERS - LEGALITY - ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - BUTU PRASAD KUMBHAK V. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1948.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, former landowners whose land was acquired for the expansion of an Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) bottling plant, filed a writ petition alleging breach of promise by IOCL and the State respondents to provide employment to the petitioners or their family members as part of a rehabilitation package.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the promise of employment to land losers was illegal and unenforceable as it violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality in matters of employment. The court further held that the State Government could not compel IOCL to give preferential employment to land losers and directed the State Government to refrain from doing so in the future.
Issues: 1. Whether the promise of employment to land losers made by IOCL and the State Government was legal. 2. Whether the petitioners had a fundamental right to employment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the promise of employment was illegal as it was not provided for under the Land Acquisition Act, 1948, which governs the acquisition of land for public purposes. The court reasoned that the procedure established by the Act for compensating land losers is exhaustive and does not include any provision for providing employment. 2. The court held that the petitioners did not have a fundamental right to employment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Butu Prasad Kumbhar v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., where it was held that the State is not obligated to provide employment to every member of a family displaced due to land acquisition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the State Government to refrain from giving preferential employment to land losers in the future.
Petitioner No.1 is the ex-owner of a piece of cultivable land measuring about 15 cottahs. There is no dispute that the said plot of land was acquired on the request of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for the purpose of expanding its bottling plant at Budge Budge. There is also no dispute that while the said plot of land of the petitioner No.1 was acquired, lands belonging to others in the vicinity were also acquired for the self-same purpose. There is no dispute that such acquisitions have been made in terms of and upon duly complying with the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1948. It has been suggested in the petition that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as well as the Stated respondents held out that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. shall provide employment to the family members of the land losers subject to certain conditions as regards age, educational qualification, etc. it is the grievance of the petitioners that in breach of such promise or holding out no employment has been given to the petitioner No. I or to any of his family members, but employments have been given to other land losers or their family members and hence this writ petition.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is a Government Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. There is no dispute that it is a public enterprise. Being an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it is bound to adhere to the provisions of the 'Constitution in so far as the same relate to fundamental right.
3. In the matter of appointments there cannot be any discrimination thus says Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality in relation thereto as a fundamental right. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., therefore, in the matter of giving appointment cannot discriminate. There being no dispute that the lands in question were acquired upon complying with the provisions contained in the. Land Acquisition Act, 1948 and there being no mandate in the said Act to give appointment by an instrumentality of a State by while acquiring any type of land by way of compensation or otherwise, I called upon the respondents to file affidavits to state as to on which policy these appointments were promised. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has not filed any affidavit but the State-respondents have. In that it has been stated that a rehabilitation package was formed by the State Government in consultation with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. so as to minimise the chance of litigation by aggrieved people or by the land losers and that rehabilitation package, inter alia, provided that the land losers or their family members should get priority in recruitment to be made by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. provided the person to be recruited meets the necessary criteria laid down by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as to age, qualification etc. In this connection reference was made to a letter of the District Magistrate of the concerned District addressed to the Deputy General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. with copies to Special Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department and to Additional District Magistrate (Development) of the concerned District. In that it was stated that in addition to compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1948, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is to take a practical view of all the aspects involved in the process of acquisition of land and accordingly a rehabilitation package is required to be propounded to minimise the chances of litigation by aggrieved people and also for pre-empting any antagonistic stand of the land losers which may adversely affect the project. The rehabilitation package wasthel1 proposed. In that it was, inter alia, contended that preference may be given to the members of the land losing families for enrolling their names in the nearest Employment Exchange and the Indian. Oil Corporation Ltd
