FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION (REGD.), SINDRI AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 13-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

52 
A 
FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION (REGD.), 
B 
SINDRI AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
November 13, 1980 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER, 
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 19(1)(g)-Sale of redundant /retired pla_'lfS 
& equipment--Occupation of an industrial l'.'Orker-Whet!ter affected by sucfl 
-C 
sale-Article 
14-Whether violated-Article 43A-Wrongs con1mitted by 
management in public sector whether can be remedied-Article 31-Access to 
Justice-Public Property dissipated by sale-When and by who1n can the sale 
be set aside. 
The petitioners (v.lorkers) challenged the legality of the sale of certain 
plants and equipment of the Sindri Fertilizer Factory, whereby 
the 
highest 
•D 
terider submitted by respondent No. 4 \Vas accepted by the Tender Committee 
and approved by the Board of Directors. The petitioners, amongst others, ccu.~ 
tended that (i) that the decision to sell the plants and equipment of the Factcry 
was taken without rolling for any report; ;(ii) the original tender of Rs. 7.~ 
crores was unaccountably reduced to Rs. 4.25 crores; (iii) the price of the 
plants and equipment, which was ultimately realised in the sale was manipulated 
V.'ith ulterior purposes; (iv) the decision to restrict fresh offers, in respect of 
!E 
the reduced equipment, to the tenderers who had submitted tenders for more 
F 
G 
· than Rs. 4 crores was unfair and arbitrary; (v) the said decision resulted in 
a huge loss to the public exchequer and (vi) the sale had jeopardised 
the 
employment of 11000 odd \Yorkers who faced retrenchment as a result of the 
iale. 
On behalf of petitioners 3 and 4 it was further contended that the sa1e will 
deprive them of their fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) to carry on 
their occupation as industrial workers and that the sale is in violation of the 
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution being arbitrary and unfair. The 
respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ 
petition on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi and that the 
impugned sale did not violate any Of the fundamental rights of the petition~!'$. 
Dismissing the petition : 
HELD (By the Court) 
The petitioners' right under Art. 19(1) (g) to carry on their occupation as 
industrial workers was not affected by the sale, nor was their fundamental right, 
if any, under Article 14 of the Constitution violated. [60 Al 
(Per Chandrochud, CJ., Faznl Ali & Kosbal, JJ.) 
1. The violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non cf the exerc!se 
of the right conferred by Article 32. 
. ...,. 
... 
• 
FERTILIZER CORPN. V. UNION 
53 
The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 32 is an impor-
tant and integral part of the basic structure of the· Constitution because it is 
meaningless to confer fundamental rights without providing an effective remedy 
for their enforcement, if and when they are violated. A right without a remedy 
is a legal conundrum of a most grotesque kind. [59 E·Fl 
2. Whereas the right guaranteed by Article 32 can be exercised for !he 
enforcement of fundamental rights only, the right conferred by Article 226 can 
be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but for any 
ether purpose. [59 E] 
3(i). There is no substance in the grievance that the petitioners' right under 
Article 19(1)(g) is violated or is in the imminent danger of being violated 
by the impugned sale, since not only did the sale not affect the employment 
of the workers employed in the Factory, but those of them who were rendered 
surplus from time to time on account of the closure of the plants were absorbed 
in alternate employment in the same complex. [60 C, F·G] 
(ii) The right of petirioners 3 and 4 and of the other workers is not, in 
any manner, affected by the impugned sale. 
The right to pursue 
a 
calling 
or to carry on an occupation is not the same thing as the right to work in a 
particular post under a contract of employment. If the workers are retrenched 
consequent upon and on account of the sale, it will be open to them, to pursue 
their rights and remedies under the Industrial Laws. The closure of an esta· 
blishment in which a workman is for the time being employed does not by it-
self infringe his fundamental right to carry on an occupation which is guaran· 
teed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. [60 G-H, 61 A] 
4. Article 19(1)(g) confers a

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