9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (12) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hindustan Steel Ltd.,Ranchi with effect from October 22, 1959. After completing his period of probation he was employed on a contract for 5 years. Ex. P-3 is the Contract of Service which he entered into with the Company. Under the terms of the contract there. was a further period of probation. During the period of probation the Company could terminate his service without notice and without assigning any reason. On the completion of the period of probation, either side could terminate the contract by 3 months' notice without assigning any reason. The Company could also terminate the employment by 'giving in lieu of notice, three months' salary. This term was .applicable till three months immediately before the end of the period of 5 years. If a notice terminating the service was not ven three months before the close of the end of 5 years the contract was automatically extended till the incumbent became superannuated on reaching the age of 55 years. The appellant -passed the probation period and he was en- titled to three months' notice if his services were to be terminated. The Company maintains certain set, of Rules governing the employment of its workmen, in addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitution was not available in the case because the appellant was not entitled to it. It appears that this was the only point urged in the High Court. In the appeal before us attempt was made to enlarge the case by arguing other points, namely, that the enquiry was not properly conducted, that the principles of natural justice were violated and that the appellant had no opportunity of defending himself. None of these points is- touched upon in the High: Court's judgment and it appears that in the High Court only the constitutional question was raised. Otherwise, one would expect the High. Court to have said something about it, or the appellant to have said so in the application for certificate or in the proposed grounds filed with that, application. We decline to allow these fresh grounds to be urged. The question that arises in this case is : whether the em- ployeesof a Corporation such as the Hindustan Steel Ltd., are entitledto the protection of Art. 31 1 ? This question can only be answered in favour of the appellant if we hold that the appellant held a civil post under the Union. It was conceded before us that the appellant could not be said to belong to the civil servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncumbents of such posts also receive protection. In the present case the appellant did not belong to any of the permanent services. He held a post which was not borne on any of the standing services. It was, however,, a civil post as opposed to a military post. So far the appellant's case is clear but the clause speaks further that such posts must be under the Union or a State. - The question thus is whether the servant employed here can be said to have held the post under the Union or a State ? The appellant contends that since Hindustan Steel Limited is entirely financed by the Government and its management is directly the responsibility of the President, the post is. virtually under the Government of India. This argument ignores some fundamental concepts in relation to incorporated companies. In support of the contention that the post must be regarded as one under the Union the appeliant relies on some obiter observations of a single Judge in M. Verghese v. Union of India and others( 1). In that case the petitioners were drivers working for the Durgapur Project under Hindustan Steel Limited. The learned Judge considered the question by analysing the set up of Hindustan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 'abolish the post or regulate the conditions of .service. Although the case concerned a Mali employed in Rai Bhavan, it was held that it was not a post under the State even -though the funds of the State were made available for paying, his salary. In a later case-Subodh Ranjan Ghosh v. Sindhri Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.(')-the employees of the Sindhri Fertilizers were held not entitled to the protection of Art. 31 1. Our brother Ramaswami (then Chief Justice) noticed that the corporation was completely owned by the Union Government; that the Directors were to be appointed by the President of India -who could also issue directions. He nevertheless held that in the eye of law the company was a separate entity and had a separate legal existence. In our judgment the decision in the -Patna case is correct. . It has also the support of a decision re-ported in Ram Babu Rathaur v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India(A.I.R. 1961 All. 503.) and another in Damodar Valley ,'Corporation v. Provat ROY(LX C.W.N. 1023). Our brother Ramaswami relied in particular upon an English case Tamlin v. Hannaford(1). In that case it was held in relation to a business t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
