Prakash Narain, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by two petitioners, namely, The National Seeds Corporation Employees Union through its General Secretary and Shri J. P. Singh, the General Secretary of the first petitioner against the National Seeds Corporation, F-44/a, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi through its Chairman. By this petition a prayer is made for the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondent-corporation directing it to restore the enhanced house-rent allowance which the employees of the respondent were getting by virtue of a resolution passed at the 45th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent-corporation on 27th September, 1971. The benefit of the enhanced houserent allowance was made applicable to the employees of the respondent w. e. f. 1st October, 1971. This order was revoked by an office order No. 741 (Part-I) issued on 1st January, 1972. Aggrieved by the said order of revocation the petitioners have come to this court and challenged the order dated 1st January, 1972 as being arbitrary, illegal, capricious, against the principles of A natural justice and passed in violation of the provisions of Section 9a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the payment of house-rent allowance is compulsory in terms of the rules of service applicable to the employees of the respondent and it is contended that the house-rent allowance forms part of the wages as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contention is that inasmuch as the terms of service of the employees of the respondent have been changed to their detriment without the respondent complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the said order dated 1st January, 1972 be struck down and a mandamus be issued to the respondent directing it to restore the payment of house-rent allowance at the enhanced rate.

( 3 ) NOTICE to show cause why the petition should not be admitted was issued to the respondent which filed a reply in opposition to the admission of the writ petition. The petitioners filed a rejoinder thereto. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent it was contended that the respondent being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, no writ of mandamus could be issued to it; that inasmuch as the respondent had adopted all Government rules and Regulations including Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Services Regulations etc. , the provisions of Section 9a of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be attracted in the case of the respondent-, that assuming that Section 9a of the Industrial Disputes Act is attracted to the facts of the case, the petitioners have the alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute and so, should not be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court; that house-rent allowance is being paid to the employees of the respondent but the enhanced house-rent allowance adopted by resolution No. 16 in the 45th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent and held on 27th September, 1971, is to remain inoperative in view of the grave situation created in the country by influx of refugees from Bangla Desh and need to conserve money; the respondent being a public-sector enterprise has to follow instructions received from the Government of India from time to time in various matters particularly, with regard to finance; that the enhanced house-rent allowance was agreed to also in view of Governmental instructions and has been kept in abeyance again in view of Governmental instructions; that the order revoking the earlier decision to increase the house-rent allowance was neither arbitrary nor illegal nor capricious nor against the principles of natural justice; and that the house-rent 5-1 H. C. Delhi/72 allowance was a fringe benefit and not wages

Click Here to Read the rest of this document