D. R. GURUSHANTAPPA versus ABDUL KHUDDUS ANWAR & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 425 · Decided: 27-01-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
D.R.GURUSHANTAPPA 
v. 
ABDUL KHUDDUS ANWAR & ORS. 
January 27, 1969 
• 
(J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A, VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J 
Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), s. 
10--Caodidate 
elected employed in a company owned by Government-If disqual1 1~ed­
Constitution of India Arts. 102(1) and 191(1)-Scope of. 
The first respondent was appointed in 
a undertaking started and 
managed by the State Government, as its own concern. Later a company 
was registered and it took over the undertaking. 
All the shares in the 
company were held by the Government though some were in the name 
of its officers. 
The Directors of the Company were appointed by the 
Government-a Minister \.Vas one of the first Directors of the Company; 
the appointment of the Secretary of the Company was subject to approval 
of the Government; and, even in the general working of the c(ompany, 
Government had the power to issue directions to the Directors which were 
to be carried out by them. 
When the concern was taken over from the 
Government by the Company, the services of the first respondent were 
not terminated and he was continued in the same post by the company 
which he was holding when the concern was being run by the Govern· 
ment. and there was no fresh contract entered into between him and the 
company. 
He was later promoted to the post of Superintendent in the 
Company, and he successfully contested a seat to the State Legislature. 
The appellant an unsucdessful candidate, challenged the election contend· 
ing : (i) that the first respondent when initially appointed to the post was 
a government servant and, even after that concern was taken over by the 
company. he continul!d to be in the service of the Government~ and (ii) 
alternatively, that ever if the first respondent ceased to be Government 
servant, he still continued to hold an office of profit under the 
State 
Government. though technically he 
was 
in the 
employment 
of the 
company. 
HELD : The first respondent was not holding an office of profit under 
the State Government. 
( i) When the undertaking was taken over by the company as a going 
conce'rn, the employees working in the undertaking were also taken. over 
and since. in law, the company had to be treated as an entity distinct and 
sepa'rate from the Government. the employees, as a result of the transfer 
of the undertaking, beoame employees of the company and ceased to be 
employees of the Government. 
The first respondent was a workman at 
the time of the transfer of the undertaking and as a workman, he had, 
under s. 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, become an employee of the 
new employer. viz. the company. 
In view of this provision of law, there 
was no need for any specific contract being ente'red into between the 
Government and the first respondent terminating his Government service; 
nor was there any need for a fresh contract being entered into between 
the companv and the first respondent to make him an employee of the 
company. Further, after the undertaking was taken over by the company, 
the employees, who were workmen, 
were no longer 
governed 
by the 
S.tate1s Civil Service Regulations. Their conditions o'f service were deter· 
mined by the Standing Orders of the Company which were certified under 
425 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 3 S.C.R. 
the Industrial Enwloyment (Standing Order) Act, 1946. 
The mere in-
clusion in the Civil List of the name of a person could not prove that 
that person was in the service of the Government, unles·s evidence was 
tendered to show the circumstances under which the name was included 
in the Civil List and to exclude the possibility of names of persons other 
than those in government service being included in the Civil List. 
No 
such evidence was given in this case. 
Finally the post, which be was 
holding while the concern was being run by the Government, ceased to 
be a Gove'rnment post in the transfer of the undertaking to the company 
and became a post under the qompany, so that the first respondent ceased 
to be in Government service by continuing in that post. [429E, G; 430B, 
&-HJ 
(ii) The fact that the Government had control over the Managing 
Director and other Directors 
as well as the power of issuing directions 
relating to the wo'rking of the company could not lead to the inference 
that every employee of the company was under . the 
control 
of the 
Government. 
The power to appoint and dismiss first respon

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