LexM.P. STATE CO-OP. DAIRY FEDN. LTD. & ANR. versus RAJNESH KUMAR JAMINDAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 6 S.C.R. 182 M.P. STATE CO-OP. DAIRY FEDN. LTD. & ANR. v. RAJNESH KUMAR JAMINDAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2442 of 2009) APRIL 15, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 - Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited - Held: C Is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 - Federation is part of the Government department - It carries on commercial activities, works for achieving better economic development and nutritional value, public health of section of people - It D monitors functioning of societies under it. Service Law: M.P. State Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Employees Recruitment, Classification and Conditions of Service Regulations, 1985 - Regulation 13 - Compulsory E retirement - Re-instatement - Grant of 50% back wages to 16 employees and 20% to 36 employees - On appeal, held: Federation having adopted rules and circulars by State Government for passing orders of compulsorily retirement, was bound by it - It did not act upon the same - There were F no material to show that employees had become dead wood, inefficient or corrupt - Order of compulsory retirement was not passed by way of punishment, thus, regulation 49(2) governing payment of back wages not applicable - Order granting 50% back wages to 16 employees was not interfered G with - It cannot be understood as to why Division Bench granted 20% back wages to other employees - Thus, 50% back wages_ should have been granted - One of the employees continued in service not as a disabled person under 1995 Act, thus not entitled to entire back wages - H 182 M.P. STATE CO-OP. DAIRY FEDN. LTD. & ANR. v. 183 RAJNESH KUMAR JAMINDAR & ORS . • Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full A Participation) Act, 1995 - Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Appellant-M.P. State Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. is a society registered and incorporated under the B Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It was constituted to promote sale of milk and its products inter ·- alia with a view to provide employment to agriculturists, milk suppliers so as to enable it to implement a World Bank Scheme effectively. Respondents-employees of the c Federation, completed 20 years of service. The orders of compulsory retirement was issued against 52 employees. 16 employees challenged the order. Federation filed appeals and the same were dismissed but only 50% back wages was granted to the employees. As regards 36 D employees, the Division Bench of High Court directed reinstatement of the said respondents with only 20% back wages. The questions which arose for consideration in these appeals is whether Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative E Dairy Federation Limited is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India; and whether the order of High Court was justified. ) Dismissing the appeals filed by Federation and F allowing that of employees, the Court HELD:1.1. Appellant-M.P. State Co-operative Dairy ' Federation Ltd. was a part of the Departmept of the Government. It not only carries on commercial activities, it works for achieving the better economic development G f of a section of the people. It seeks to achieve the principles laid down in Article 47 of the Constitution of India, viz., nutritional value and health. It undertakes a training and research work. Guidelines issued by it are binding on the societies. It monitors the functioning of the H t 184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A societies under it. It is an apex body. Therefore, the appellant would come within the purview of the definition of 'State' as contained in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 28 and 29) [208-E-H] B Kuna/ Singh v. Union of India and Another (2003) 4 SCC 524; Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. M.P. Dugdh Mahasangh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit 1993 MPLJ 786; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722; Ramana Dayaram Sheffy v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489; Chander Mohan Khanna v. National C Council of Educational Research and Training (1991) 4 SCC 578; M.P. State Co-operative Dairy Federation and Others v. Madan Lal Chourasia 2007 (2) M.P.L.J. 594; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111; Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) D 3 SCR 377; P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Oth
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.