2003 (2) TMI 353 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent, Maharashtra Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation Limited, is a "State" or an agency/instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the respondent.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary, gratuity, provident fund, earned leave encashment, and other allowances with interest.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the respondent, Maharashtra Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation Limited, is a "State" or an agency/instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India:

The petitioner claimed that the respondent is a State or an agency/instrumentality of the State because it is a deemed Government company registered under the Companies Act, with its share capital held by ICICI, IDBI, IFCI, other corporations of the Government of Maharashtra, and nationalized banks. The respondent denied this, arguing that it was not a Government undertaking and did not receive any grants for survival. It was only a deemed Government company under section 619B of the Companies Act until 1-6-1995, after which it ceased to be so due to changes in its shareholders' composition.

The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to determine if the respondent qualifies as a "State" under Article 12. Key judgments included:
- Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association [2002] 2 SCC 167: The court noted that the Mysore Paper Mills was deemed a State due to deep and pervasive control by the Government of Karnataka, financial dependence on the government, and the government's role in its management and administration.
- Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institution of Chemical Biology [2002] 5 SCC 111: The court emphasized that the determination depends on whether the entity is financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by the government, with deep and pervasive control.

The court concluded that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that the respondent was a State or an agency/instrumentality of the State. The respondent did not have deep and pervasive control by the State Government, and it was not even a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act. Thus, the respondent was not a State under Article 12.

2. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the respondent:

Given the conclusion that the respondent is not a State or an agency/instrumentality of the State, the court held that the respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that the primary burden was on the petitioner to establish that the respondent was a State, which he failed to do.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary, gratuity, provident fund, earned leave encashment, and other allowances with interest:

Since the court determined that the respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, it did not address the merits of the petitioner's claims for arrears of salary, gratuity, provident fund, earned leave encashment, and other allowances with interest. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the respondent is not a State or an agency/instrumentality of the State.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no costs. The court concluded that the respondent, Maharashtra Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation Limited, is not a State or an agency/instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.