2007 Supreme(SC) 1091

2007(6) Supreme 438
Supreme Court of india
A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.
S.C. Chandra & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 1532 of 2005
with
C.A.No.6595 of 2005, C.A. Nos.6602-6603 of 2005 & C.A.No.6601 of 2005.
Decided on : 21-08-2007

important points
Merely because most of he members of the managing committee of the school were employees of the HCL and the children of workers of HCL were being benefited by this school for which the management of HCL was giving financial aid; it cannot be construed that the school was run by the management of HCL.
BCCL is not an instrumentality of the State.
For application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, there should be total identity between both the groups.

Headnote:(a)Constitution of India – Article 226 – Maintainability of writ – Merely because most of he members of the managing committee of the school were employees of the HCL and the children of workers of HCL were being benefited by this school for which the management of HCL was giving financial aid; it cannot be construed that the school was run by the management of HCL – No infirmity in judgment of High Court. (Para 5)

       (b)Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 – Sections 2(d) and 19 – The proprietary school as defined under section 2(d) read with Section 19 of the Act will have to make a request to the State of Jharkhand that they will bear all the financial responsibilities – If the Managing Committee makes a request to this effect to the State of Jharkhand, then the Government may consider but at present there is no such offer – Hence no direction or mandamus can be issued in the matter.(Para 6)

       (c)Constitution of India – Article 12 – BCCL is not an instrumentality of the State, its dominant function as per section 617 of the Companies Act being to raise coal and sell it.(Para 10)

       (d)Constitution of India – Article 39(d) – Equal pay for equal work – Teachers of Ram Kanali School seeking parity with clerks of BCCL – For application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, there should be total identity between both groups i.e. the teachers of the school on the one hand and the clerks in BCCL – This being not the position, BCCL only assisting the school financially, the teachers cannot be equated with the clerks of the BCCL or of the State Government.(Para 12)

       (2006) 9 SCC 321 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case:

       The writ petitioners- appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent Nos.3 to 6 to release and pay D.A. with arrears along with interest and further a direction was sought to be issued to respondent Nos.3 to 6 not to close the school or in the alternative a direction was sought to be issued to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to take over the management and control of the school in question. All the writ petitioners claimed themselves as teachers and non-teaching staff of the School and claimed themselves to be the employees of the Hindustan Copper Limited (‘HCL’). It was alleged that in the year 1933 Indian Copper Corporation, a private sector unit, registered in the United Kingdom started a Lower Primary School at Mahuadanr for the children of its employees which was named as Mahuadanr Lower Primary School. In the year 1944-45, the school was upgraded to Upper Primary School i.e. upto Class V. In 1958-59 the School was upgraded to a Middle School and recognition to Middle School was accorded by the then District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa. Thereafter on 21.9.1972 the Indian Copper Corporation (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1972 was notified and the Indian Copper Corporation was taken over by the Central Government and it became a part of HCL, a Government of India enterprise. It was alleged that thereafter the School was sought to be taken over by the State Government but this was resisted by the Managing Committee of the School. It was alleged that the management of HCL was running two schools, one at Mosabani and another at Mahuadanr as proprietary schools and they were managed by the Managing Committee. The present school was getting the financial assistance from the management of the HCL. The Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 (‘Act’) was passed. Section 19 of the Act laid down certain conditions for grant of recognition to such proprietary schools run through the Managing Committee and therefore, it was contended that the school was run by the Managing Committee and the service conditions of staff of the school were approved by the Executive Director and thereafter request was made by the HCL to the Education Commission for grant of recognition as a High School. The school was recognized by the State Government under the provisions of the Act of 1981. It was alleged that the Managing Committee of the School was constituted and reconstituted by the Management of the HCL. Thereafter 10+ 2 stream was introduced in the said School and a request was made by the President of the School to the Director, Bihar Secondary Education seeking permission to upgrade the ICC High School, Mahuadanr to +2 stage and the same was recognized by the Government of Bihar. However, in the meanwhile because of critical financial situation the managing committee of the school requested the management of the HCL to approach the State Government for taking over of the school at the earliest. The school was not taken over under the Act of 1981 by the newly formed State of Jharkhand. Since the management of HCL was closed on account of financial stress, therefore, no financial aid could be extended to the school and the writ petitioners could not get their salaries as the financial aid was not coming from the management of the HCL and therefore, they approached the High Court of Jharkhand for issuance of writ of mandamus against respondent nos. 3 to 6 to release pay and arrears along with dearness allowance and they also sought a further direction not to close down the school and in the alternative a direction was also sought to be issued against respondent nos. 1 & 2 to take over the management of the school.

       Learned Single Judge after considering the matter in number of petitions, came to the conclusion that the school was not the dominant object of the HCL and it found that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Management of HCL and the teachers and other staff of the School. Therefore, no direction was given and the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

       Findings of the Court:

       The schools in question are not run by HCL or BCCL. BCCL is not an instrumentality of the State. No writ or direction can be issued to the State for taking over the schools in question.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.