ANANDI MUKTA SADGURU SHREE MUKTA JEEVANDAS SWAMI SUVARNA JAYANTI MAHOTSAV SMARK TRUST & ORS. versus V.R. RUDANI & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 21-04-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ANAND! MUKTA SADGURU SHREE MUKTA JEEVANDAS 
SWAMI SUVARNA JAYANTI MAHOTSAV SMARK TRUST 
& ORS. 
v. 
V.R. RUDANI & ORS. 
APRIL 21, 1989 
[G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 
1950: Article 226-'Any person or 
authority'-Not to be confined only to statutory authorities or instru-
mentalities of the State-Mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that C 
duty to be enforced is not imposed by statute. 
Appellant No. 1 is a public trust and the other appellants are its 
trustees. The Trust was running a science college at Ahmedabad. The 
college initially had temporary affiliation to the Gujarat University. 
From June 15, 1973 onwards the college had permanent affiliation. 
D 
A dispute between the University Area Teachers Association and 
the University was referred to the Chancellor of the University who 
gave his award on June 12, 1970. The award was accepted by the State 
Government as well as by the University. The latter issued direction to 
all affiliated colleges to pay their teachers ln terms of the award. 
E 
The appellants instead of implementing the award served notice of 
termination upon 11 teachers on the ground that they were surplus, and 
approached the University for permission to remove them. The Vice-
Chancellor did not accept their request. Thereupon the Trust decided 
to close down the college. 
F 
The retrenched persons demanded arrears of salary and allowan-
ces, provident fund and gratuity dues, and closure compensation. But 
the management did not pay these dues. The employees then moved the 
High Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Trust to pay the 
retrenched employees their legitimate dues. The High Court accepted G 
the writ petitions. 
Before this Court, the appellants while conceding the just right of 
the employees to get salary for 2~ months and the provident fund dues, 
contended that the Trust was entitled to get reimbursement from the 
Government in lieu of these payments. As regards the arrears of salary H 
697 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
A payable under the Chancellor's aWljrd, the appellants contended that it 
was the liability of the Government and not of the management of the 
college. As regards the closure compensation it was contended that 
Ordinance 120E prescribing compensation was ultra vires, and, at any 
rate, it was itot binding on the Trust since it was enacted prior to the 
affiliation of the college. It was further contended tltat the Trust was a 
B private body and was not subject to the writ jurisdiction under Article 
226. 
Dismissing the appeals, it was, 
Held: ( I)Tbe Court is only concerned with the liability of the 
C 
management of the college towards the employees. Under the relation-
ship of master and servant, the management is primarily responsible to 
i t. 
pay salary and other benefits to the employees. The management cannot 
-f-
say that unless and until the State compensates, it will not make full 
payment to the staff. [703E-F] 
D 
(2) The college had temporary affiliation even earlier to the Ordi-
nance 120E. That apart, the benefits under the Ordinance are to be 
given when the college is closed which in this case was admittedly after 
•the Ordinance was enacted. [704A-B] 
(3) If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus 
E can issue. If the management of the college is vurely a private body with 
no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to 
mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other 
equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. [7058-C l 
(4) Public money paid as Government aid plays a major role in 
F 
the control, maintenance and working of educational institutions. 
The aided institutions, like Government institutions, discharge public 
function by way of imparting education to students. They are subject 
to the rules and regulations of the affiliating University. Their 
activities are closely supervised by the University authorities 
Employment in such institutions, therefore, is not devoid of any public 
G character. [705C-D] 
(5) When the University takes a decision regarding the pay scales 
of the employees of the aided institution, it will be binding on the 
management. The service conditions of the academic staff are, there-
fore, not purely of a private character. It has SJlper-added protection by 
H University decisions creating a legal right-duty relationship. When there 
ANAND! MUKTA SMARK TRUST v. V.R. RU

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.