DISTT. MANAGER, APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA versus K. SIVAJI AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 30-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DISTT. MANAGER, APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA 
v. 
K. SIVAJI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Factories and Establishment (National Festival and 
other Holidays) Act, 1974: 
A 
B 
Section I J(J)(c)-Applicabi/ity of-To Road Transport Corporation-- C 
Held: The Corporation is under the control of the State Government-Hence, 
S. I I (J)(c) not applicable to such Corporation-Road Transport Corporation 
Act, 1950, S.3-Payment of Wages Act. 
Estab/ishment-"Under the control of the State Government"- D 
S.JJ(J)(c)-Applicability of-Held: Once an establishment is deemed to be 
a State under Art. I 2 it is under the control of the Government-Hence, 
Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Act is not applicable to such an establishment-
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 12. 
Judicial Discipline: 
Requirement of-Held: Judicial discipline requires that a Single Judge 
either follows the decision of a concurrent Bench or refer the matter to a 
larger Bench. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Under the control of the Central or State Government"-Meaning 
of-Jn the context of S. JI (/)(c) of Andhra Pradesh Factories and 
Establishments (National Festival and other Holidays) Act, 1974. 
E 
F 
G 
The respondents were employees of the appellant-corporation established 
under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The respondents 
filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act claiming 
wages for holidays declared under the Andhra Pradesh Factories and 
Establishments (National Festival and Other Holidays) Act, 1974. The H 
193 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A appellant contended that by virtue of Section I l(l)(c) of the Act the provisions 
of the Act were not applicable to it The Appropriate Authority negatived this 
contention and directed the appellant to make payment for the work done by 
the respondents on holidays declared under the Act 
The High Court held that the appellant was not under the control of the 
B Central or the State Government and that the provisions of the Act were 
applicable to the appellant-Corporation. The High Court also held that even 
though an institution might be treated as a state within the meaning of Article 
12 of the Constitution of India, it did not necessarily mean that it was under 
the control of the State Government or the Central Government The High 
C Court had also relied upon Section 68-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and 
concluded from this provision that the Road Transport Corporation established 
under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act was distinct from the 
Central or State Government. The High Court did not follow the decision of 
a concurrent Bench of the same High Court on this point on the ground that 
the said decision was based on facts. The High Court, therefore, dismissed 
D the writ petition filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The Words used in Section I l(l)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh 
Factories and Establishments (National Festival and other Holidays) Act, 1974 
are "any factory or establishment under the control of the Central or any 
E State Government". In Article 12 of the Constitution oflndia the words used 
are "under the control of Government of India". Thus, under both of them 
what is essential is control of the Government. Therefore, an establishment, 
which is deemed to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the 
Constitution of India, would be under the control of the Government for 
F purposes of Section ll(l)(c) of the Act. (198-EI 
1.2. Reliance on Section 68-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the 
High Court is entirely misplaced. Under Section 3 of the Road Transport 
Corporation Act, 1950, it is the State Government who may either perform 
the function of providing road transport service itself or establish a 
G Corporation, which would be performing functions, which are basically public 
functions. Merely because the State Government establishes a Corporation 
and that Corporation is an establishment distinct from the State Government 
does not ipso facto mean that the Corporation is not under the control of the 
State Government. (198-F-GJ 
H 
1.3. It is clear that the appellant-Corporation is under the control of 
DISTT. MANAGER, APSRTC v. K. SIVAJI [VARIAYA, .I.] 
195 
the State Government. Therefore, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh A 
Factories and Establishments (National Festival and other Holiday

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