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
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.
(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.
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.