LexJATYA PAL SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 970
JATYA PAL SINGH & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
{Civil Appeal No. 2147 of 2010)
APRIL 17, 2013
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
c
Arts. 12 and 226 - Writ petitions before High Court by
employees of VSNL (renamed TCL) challenging termination
of their services - Held: Are not maintainable - Government
of India holding only 26.12% shares of TCL, would not be in
control of affairs of TCL - TCL cannot be said to be 'other
0 authority' within Art. 12 - Merely because TCL is performing
the functions which were initially performed by OCS would not
be sufficient to hold that it is performing a public function -
The functions performed by VSNUTCL are not of such nature
which could be said to be a public function - Therefore, High
E Court of Delhi and High Court of Bombay were fully justified
in rejecting the claim of appellants that TCL would be
amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court by virtue of the
'other authority' within the purview of Art. 12 - Human Rights
Act, 1998 - s.6(3)(b).
F
The appellants, in C.A. No. 3933 of 2013 and C.A. No.
2147 of 2010, who had joined the service of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Telecommunication
known as Overseas Communication Service (OSS), and
were subsequently absorbed in Videsh Sanchar Nigam
G Limited (VSNL), filed writ petitions before the High Court
of Bombay, challenging the termination of their services
by the respondents. The writ petitions were dismissed in
limine by the Division Bench. In the writ petitions filed
before the Delhi High Court by former employees of
H
970
JATYA PAL SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA &
971
ORS.
VSNL, tl'te single Judge accepted the preliminary A
objection that the writ petitions were not maintainable, as
VSNL was neither a State within the meaning of Art.12 of
the Constitution of India nor was it performing any public
function. Their Lette.rs Patent Appeals were also
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Writ 8
Petition· No. 689 of 2007 was filed by Videsh Sanchar
Nig$m Scheduled Castes/Tribes Employees Welfare
samiti .
. '
I
~he questions for consideration before the Court
were: (i) Whether inspite of the Government of India
C
holding only 26.97% shares in VSNL/TCL, would it still
fall in the definition of State or other authority within the
. '.
ambit of Art.12 of the Constitution; and (ii) Whether VSNU
TCLl"is performing a public function/public duty," and as
such, would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of High
D
Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
.
Dismissing the appeals and the writ petition, the
Court
HELD: 1.1. It is significant to note that Ministry of E
Communication took a decision to convert its OCS
Department into a Public Sector Corporation (PSC)
known as VSNL. Eventually, from the date the OCS
employees were transferred to VSNL on deputation basis
· without deputation allowance on foreign service terms,
F
they ceased to be government servants. It is, thus, patent
that the appellant accepted the absorption voluntarily.
Therefore, it can not; be said that the appellants even
after absorption in VSNL, continued to enjoy the
protection available to the.m in the OCS as goverriment G
servants. [para 10 and 45] [979-E-F; 996-G-H; 997-A]
1.2 Subsequent to the dis.investment in 2002, the
name of VSNL being a Tata Group Company was
changed to "Tata Communications Limited" (TCL). Since
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 2 S.C.R.
A 13.2.2002, Government of India holds only 26.12 %
shares of TCL. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that
on the basis of the shareholding, the Government of India
would not be in control of the affairs of TCL. [para 18 and
39] [983-F-G; 992-G; 993-A]
B
1.3 TCL cannot be said to be 'other authority' within
Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. The share holding of
Union of India would not satisfy test principles 1 and 2
in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty *. On perusal of
the facts, it would be evident that test No.3 would also
C not be satisfied as TCL does not enjoy a monopoly status
in ILDS. So far as domestic market is concerned, there 1
is open competition between the numerous operators,
like, MTNL, Airtel, Idea, Aircel, etc. Again in view of the 4th
test, it cannot be said that the Government of India
D exercises deep and pervasive control in either the
management or policy making of TCL which are purely
private eExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.