SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1530

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
P.K.Lohra, J.
Smt. Maya - Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Zinc Limited - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4356 of 2002.
Decided On : 16-07-2013

For the Petitioner:Mr. B.R. Mehta with Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate.

A corporation can be considered a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India only if there is deep and pervasive control of the State over the corporation.

Headnote:

WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - STATUS OF RESPONDENT COMPANY AS "STATE" OR "OTHER AUTHORITY" UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - DISINVESTMENT - DEEP AND PERVASIVE CONTROL OF THE STATE - TESTS FOR DETERMINING STATUS OF A CORPORATION AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT - CLAIM FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS - SETTLEMENT - LUMP SUM COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, the widow of an employee of the respondent company, sought appointment on compassionate grounds, eviction from the quarter allotted to her late husband, back wages from the date of his death, and costs of the writ petition. The respondent company challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court, as it was no longer a Government of India enterprise after disinvestment.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable against the respondent company as it was not a "State" or "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The court applied the tests propounded by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Zee Telefilms Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. to determine the status of the respondent company and found that there was no deep and pervasive control of the State on the company after disinvestment. The court also held that the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was not tenable in light of the settlement between the respondent company and the workers' union, which provided for lumpsum compensation in case of death of an employee in harness.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondent company was a "State" or "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India after disinvestment? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The status of a corporation as an instrumentality or agency of the Government is determined by examining the following factors: - Whether the entire share capital of the corporation is held by the Government. - Whether the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation. - Whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. - Whether there exists deep and pervasive State control over the corporation. - Whether the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to Governmental functions. - Whether a department of Government is transferred to the corporation. 2. Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is subject to the rules, regulations, schemes, or settlements in place.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The court clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner from claiming the lumpsum compensation determined by the respondent employer.

JUDGMENT

1. - Smt. Maya, the petitioner, has laid this writ petition for craving the under mentioned reliefs:

(a) That the respondent may be directed to provide employment to the petitioner.

(b) That she may not be evicted from the quarter in which she is living at present with her three minor children.

(c) That she may be allowed the back wages from the date of death of her husband i.e. 06.05.2001.

(d) Costs of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner.

(e) Any other relief which is in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice may be allowed.

2. The foundation of claiming the aforesaid reliefs, as adumbrated from the facts narrated in the writ petition, is that husband of the petitioner, Om Prakash, was in employment of the respondent company since 1984. While serving the respondent as regular employee "Mazdoor", Shri Om Prakash Harijan died in harness on 6th of May 2001. As per the petitioner, Late Om Prakash was allotted residential accommodation in the form of Quarter No.A-47/1 by the respondent for dwelling. After death of Om Prakash, who was the sole bread winner of the family, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds vide her application dated 10th of March 2002 at Rajpura Dariba office of the respondent. After receiving the application, the petitioner was conveyed that she could inquire about further action in the month of June, however, up to June 2002 when no heed was paid to her application, she again visited Rajpura Dariba office. On approach to the said office, the petitioner was intimated that requisite information in this connection could be divulged by the Head Office at Udaipur. Thereafter, as per the version of the petitioner, she contacted the concerned officer at Head Office, Udaipur, where she was informed that the application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has been filed after three months from the date of death of her husband, therefore, the said application is not worth consideration. The petitioner has further asserted that the concerned officer of the Head Office also advised her to file fresh application with requisite explanation of the delay and thereupon yet another application was submitted by her on 18th of June 2002 for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Highlighting her educational qualification as Secondary School Examination, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in the writ petition that she is unemployed and therefore unable to maintain the bereaved family consisting of three members. Adverting to the residential accommodation in the form of quarter allotted to her late husband by the respondent company, the petitioner has categorically averred that the respondent company has deducted Rs. 30,000 from PF amount of her husband against the rent of the quarter although no such deduction from the PF amount is permissible. The petitioner has also raised her grievances against the respondent in the petition by alleging that the respondent company is harassing her and compelling her to vacate the quarter. Requisite notice for eviction issued under the Rajasthan Premises (Unauthorized Occupants) Act dated 3rd of March 2002 is also annexed with the writ petition.

3. Staking her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner has referred to Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between management of the respondent company and the workers' union under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Laying specific emphasis on term No.5.1 of the settlement, the petitioner has pleaded that the respondent is bound to provide her appointment on compassionate ground. Although the petitioner has taken shelter of the Memorandum of Settlement, but neither copy of the Settlement was placed on record, nor material particulars about the said settlement were incorporated in the pleadings. Asserting the financial hardship of the bereaved family due to the death of bread winner, the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that d



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top