9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (4) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these applications were originally appointed under the Hindustan Steel Ltd. on various dates, mentioned against their names in annexure 6, and posted at Bhilai, Rourkela, Durgapur and other places. In the years 1967-68 they joined under the Bokaro Steel Ltd. According to them, they were transferred from one concern to another, the employer being the same, i.e. , the Union of India, and these were not cases of fresh appointments. They were to get all the advantages of their service under the Hindustan Steel Ltd. on their transfer to the Bokaro Steel Ltd. but in the lists (annexure "6") their seniority has been determined with reference to the date of their joining the Bokaro Steel Ltd. and those who joined the Bokaro Steel Ltd. directly after their joining the Hindustan Steel Ltd. have been placed above them. It has been contended on their behalf that these lists have been arbitrarily prepared and they violate the fundamental right of equality of opportunity in matters relating to appointment guaranteed to the petitioners who are all citizens of India under article 16 of the Constitution. It has been urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the Bokaro Steel Ltd. is not State, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to apply the principle of ejusdem generis while interpreting the expression "other authorities" in article 12 of the Constitution (see University of Madras v. Shantha Bai AIR 1954 Mad. 67 , B.W. Devadas v. Karnatak Engineering College AIR 1964 Mys. 6 and Kishan Gopal Ramchand Sharma v. Punjab University AIR 1966 Punj. 34). The rule laid down in the aforesaid decisions, however, did not find favour with their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal AIR 1967 SC 1857 . It was held by the Supreme Court in that case that the High Courts fell into an error in applying the principle of ejusdem generis when interpreting the expression "other authorities" in article 12 of the Constitution. It was further held that the Electricity Board, Rajasthan, was an authority and thus State within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Ghose has strongly relied on this decision of the Supreme Court in support of his contention that the Bokaro Steel Ltd. is an authority and thus State. Bhargava, J. speaking for himself, Subba Rao C.J. and Shelat and Mitter JJ., relied on the meaning of the word "authority" give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and they are administered under the direction of that department. The appointments and postings in superior posts in both the undertakings are done by the Government of India mostly from amongst its own officers. Paragraph 21 of the petitions states that the Ministry of Iron and Steel of the Government of India makes superior appointments in both the undertakings which are treated as part of the same Government of India industrial establishment. Paragraph 22 of the petition says that the entire body of the board of directors of both the undertakings are nominated by the Government of India and none of them is a shareholder and, as such, they are not ordinary incorporate limited companies under the Indian Companies Act. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, paragraph 23 of the petitions concludes that the petitioners hold civil posts under the Union of India. The reply to the allegations made in the aforesaid paragraphs of the petitions is to be found in paragraph 14 of the show cause petition of respondent No. 1 in each of the cases. The paragraph runs as follows : "That with respect to the statements made in paragraphs 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the writ application, it is sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned single judge who heard the application under article 226 of the Constitution in the first instance rejected it summarily on the ground that the respondent appeared to be a Government company which was neither the Government nor statutory body and so not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. There was a Letters Patent Appeal which was heard by D.N. Sinha C.J. and A.K. Mukherjee J. After considering both Indian and English authorities on the question, Sinha C.J., who delivered the judgment, concluded as follows : "At the present moment, however, regard being had to the state of the authorities, I am of the opinion that, as pointed out in Tamlin v. Hannaford [1950] 1 KB 18, the court was not entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and to examine the reality underneath. That in my view would be a matter of legislation and not of judicial interpretation. As at present advised, I must hold that a joint stock company is like a private individual except in some restricted cases, namely, when the company is a public utility company, and its employees are not civil servants and are not entitled to the protection offered by article 311 of the Constitution. Therefore, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of profit under the Government of India or not is "the, power of the Government to appoint a person to an office of profit or to continue him in that office or to revoke his appointment at their discretion". Had the appellant of that case been appointed by the directors of the Hindustan Steel Ltd. and not by the Central Government, as it appears from the ratio of the decision in Guru Gobinda Basu's case ( supra ) , their Lordships would not have held him disqualified from seeking election to the House of the People on the ground that he was holding an office of profit under the Government. It would thus appear that the mere association of the appellant of that case with the Hindustan Steel Ltd. as its auditor would not have disqualified him. The decision in this case is not of any real help to the petitioners and it nowhere can be said to have affected the authority of the decision of this court in the case of Subodh Ranjan Ghosh AIR 1957 Pat. 10. The other case on which Mr. Ghose has strongly relied is the case of S . K. Pandey v. State of Bihar [1967] BLJR 58 (Pat.). In that case a writ was issued against the managing director, Bihar State Small Industries Corporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
