MOHAMMAD SADIQ AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 189 · Decided: 21-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MOHAMMAD SADIQ AND ORS. 
A 
'y 
v. 
STATE OF UTI AR PRADESH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHW AR SINGH P ANTA,JJ.] B 
y 
Labour Laws: 
Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employee of c 
Government/Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991-ss. 
2(b) and 2(c)-Closure of Institution registered under Societies 
Registration Act-Retrenchment of its employees-Writ Petition-
Single Judge of High Court directing absorption of retrenched 
employees holding the institution as an instrumentality of the 
D 
Government-Order of Single Judge reversed by Division Bench of 
A 
High Court-On appeal, held: The retrenched employees are not 
entitled to be absorbed-Absorption Rules are not applicable to the 
Institution in question-As the Institution is not an instrumentality of 
the State and the same has not been constituted under any Uttar 
Pradesh Act-Societies Registration Act, 1860. 
E 
The institution, of which the appellants were the employees, was 
registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. It decided to close 
.. 
down one ofits centres and the workmen employed therein, were to 
>. 
be retrenched after paying compensation. Appellants-retrenched F 
employees filed Writ Petition. Single Judge of High Court allowed 
the same holding that the Institution was wholly owned, controlled 
and managed by the State Government and directed appointment 
of the employees by their absorption in any other institution of State 
Government. Special appeal, thereagainst was allowed by High G 
-y 
Court holding that the institution was not an instrumentality of the 
State Government and hence could not be termed as State 
Government or a public Corporation. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that even though, 
189 
H 
.. A 
B 
190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I 0 S.C.R. 
the institution was registered under Societies Registration Act, that 
does not mean that it was not established or constituted under any 
State Act, and hence they were entitled to protection under Uttar 
Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government/ 
Corporation in Government Service Rules, 1991. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees 
of Government/Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 
'"( 
are not applicable to the Institution. A bare reading of ss. 2(b) and 
C 2(c) of the Absorption Rules, makes the positions clear that in order 
to bring application of the Rules the public corporation has to be a 
body corporate established or constituted by or under any Uttar 
Pradesh Act. The fundamental requirement is that the corporation 
should have been constituted by or under any Uttar Pradesh Act. 
D Undisputedly, the Societies Registration Act is a Central Act. The 
Institution is not an instrumentality of the State and/or could not be 
termed to be State Government or a public Corporation. There was 
no material placed before the High Court to establish that IERT is 
an instrumentality of the State. 
E . 
[Paras 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10] [192-D-E; 193-A-B; 198-A-B-C] 
2. Even if a society or institute is registered under the Societies 
Registration Act and some functionaries of the State Government 
are the members of the institute, such an institute may not be termed 
as an instrumentality of the State, if deep and pervasive control over 
\ 
F the affairs of the institute was not with the State Government. There 
is basic distinction between a Society and a Corporation. 
[Para 7] [193-B-C] 
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology 
G and Ors., [2002] 5 SCC 111; Board a/Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani 
Tibia College, Delhi v. State of Delhi (Now Delhi Adminstration) and 
Anr., AIR (1962) SC 458, relied on. 
H 
Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sebravardi and Ors., [1981] 
1 sec 722, referred to. 
~ 
MOHAMMADSADIQv. STATEOFUTTARPRADESH 
191 
[P ASA YAT,J.] 
y 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4590 of A 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2004 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 681 of2002. 
P. Vishwanantha Shetty, S.J. Aristotle, Yatish Mohan, E.C. Vidya B 
Sagar, Shekhar Prit Jha and Dr. Bheem Pratap Singh for the Appellants. 
Dinesh Dwivedi, Niranjana Singh, Abhishek Chaudhary and Seita 
V aidyalingam for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. These appeals are inter-linked and 
are directed against common judgment of the Alla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.