LexGENERAL MANAGER, KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD., SULTANPUR, U.P. versus SATRUGHAN NISHAD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GENERAL MANAGER, KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD.,
A
SULTANPUR, U.P.
v.
SA TRUGHAN NI SHAD AND ORS.
OCTOBER 8, 2003
B
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Constizution of India, 1950 :
Article 12-"Other authorities "-Co-operative Sugar Mill- C
Instrumentality or agency of Government-Tests to determine-Factors to
be considered-Held: Form in which the body was constituted, namely,
whether it was a society or co-operative society or a company, is not
decisive-The real status of the body with respect to the control of the
Government must be looked into-There can be no hard and fast formula- D
In different facts/situations different factors may be found to be overwhelming
and indicating that the body is an authority under Art. 12-0n facts, co-
operative sugar mill neither an agency nor an instrumentality of the
Government-Hence, not "other authority" under Art. 12.
Article 226-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Against private person E
or body-Held : Only when the authority or the person performs a public
function or discharges a public duty that Art. 226 can be invoked-
Manufacture and sale of sugar does not involve any public function--
Hence, writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 could not be invoked against a co-
operative sugar mill.
f
The appellant-Mill was a co-operative society registered as such
under the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The contesting
respondents filed various writ applications in the High Court alleging
therein that they had worked on class III and IV posts in the Mill for
a period ranging from 5 to 12 years. According to them, some were G
permanent workmen whereas others were seasonal. Uttar Pradesh Co-
operative Sugar Factories Federation Limited was the apex body of co-
operative sugar mills in the State and its function was advisory in order
· .. to safeguard operational and financial interest of the sugar mills.
Under the Bye-Laws of the Mill the ratio of the nominees of the State H
349
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A Government in the committee was only l/3rd and the management of
the committee was dominated by 2/3rd non-government members. The
State Government held only 50% of the shares in the Mill.
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Federation advised
B the Mill to consider the desirability of dispensing with the services of
its surplus workmen. Thereupon, the services ofsurplus workmen were
dispensed with without giving any notice and paying retrenchment
compensation as required under Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
c
Being aggrieved the respondents filed writ petitions before the
High Court, which were allowed. Hence the appeal.
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the respondents
could not have been allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High
D Court as the Mill, which was a registered co-operative society, was not
a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as it was
neither an instrumentality nor an agency of the State Government.
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the writ
E petition could be entertained as mandamus could be issued under
Article 226 of the Constitution against any person or authority, which
would include any private person or body.
F
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. In order to decide whether a body is a 'State' under
Article 12 of the Constitution the form in which the body is constituted,
namely, whether it is a society, a co-operative society, or a company,
is not decisive. The real status of the body with respect to the control
of the Government would have to be looked into. The various tests as
G laid down in Ajay Hasia {1981) 1 sec 722, would have to be applied
and considered cumulatively. There can be no hard and fast formula
and in different facts/situations, different factors may be found to be
overwhelming and indicating that the body is an authority under
Article 12 of the Constitution. In this context, the Byelaws of the Sugar
H Mill would have to be seen. (357-B-C] ,
•
GENL. MANAGER, KISAN SAHKARJ CHINI MILLS LID.'" SATRUGHAN NISHAD 351
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1SCC722, followed. A
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India,
[1979) 3 SCC 489, Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical
Biology, [2002) 5 SCC 111, Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT, (1991)
4 SCC 578 and Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mysore PaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.