LexS. L. AGARWAL versus GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,, B c D E F G "' 363 S. L. AGARWAL v. GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. December 19, 1969 [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND !. D. DUA, JJ.j Constitution of. India, Art. 311-Civil post under Union or State- Post held under Hindustan Steel Ltd. whether such a post-Holder whether entitled to ;r:::iction of Article. The services of t::e appellant as Assistant Surgeon in the Hindustan Steel Ltd., Ranchi wcro terminated purportedly in terms of his contract of employment. In a petition under Art. 226 he claimed that the termi- nation was wrongful inasmuch as it was really by way of punishment and Art. 311 of the Constitutic>n had not been complied with. The company resisted the ground by saying that Art. 311 was not applicable ro the appellant since he was employed by a corporation and neither belonged to the civil service of the Union nor held a civil post under the union. The High Court dismi~ed the appellant's petition. In appeal before this Court by certificate, the appellant contended that since Hindustan Steel was entirely financed by the Government and its management was directly- the responsibility of the 'President, the post was virtually under the Government of India. HELD : (i) The protection of Art. 311(2) is availab:e to the cate- gories of persons mentioned in els. (a)(b) and (c) of Art. 311(1). Tue appellant did not fall in the categories mentioned in els. (ol and (b). He did hold a civil post as opposed to a military post but cl. (c) further re· quired that it must be under the Union or a State. In view of the existence of shareholders, of capital raised bY the issuance df shares, and the lack of connection between the finances of the corporation and the Consolidated Fund of the Union, it must be held that Hindustan Steel Ltd. was not a department of the Go,·ernment nor were the servants of it holding posts under the S.tate. It had its in- dependent existence and by the law relating to corporations it was distinct even from its members. In these circumstances the appellant, as an em~ ployee of Hindustan Steel Ltd., did not answer the description df a holder of 'a ci.vil post under the Union' as stoted in Art. 311. The High Court was therefore right in not affordin~ him the protection of that Article. [367 D; 369 C-E] State of Bihar v. Union of India. C.A. Nos. 512-513/69 dt. 19-9-1969 and Fraga Tools Corporation v. C. V. /manual & Ors. C.A. No. 612 1966 dt. 19-2-1969,. applied. Subodh Ran;an Ghosh v. Sindhri Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. A.l.R. 1957 Pat. IO, approved. M. Verghese v. Union oj India & Ors. A.l.R. 1963 Cal. 421, Lac/uni and Ors. v. Military Secretary to'1he Governrnent _of Bihar, A.I.R. 1956 Pat. 398, Ram Babu Rathaur v. Divisional Mana~er. life Insurance Corporation of India, A.LR. 1961 All. 503, Damrvlr.r Vailey Corporation v. Provat Roy, LX C.W.N. 1023 and Tami'" v. fla1111afcrd, [1950] l K.B.D. 18, referred to. 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970) 3 S.C.R. (ii) The contentions sought to be raised by the appellant regarding the validity of the departmental enquiry against him were not touched upon in the High Court's judgment nor mentioned in the proposed grounds filed with the application for certificate. The appellant could not be allowed to urge them for the first time in this Court. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 524 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 19, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 33 of 1965. P. Ram Reddy and S. S. Khanduja, for the appellant. I. N. Shroff, for the respondents. Shyamala Pappu, C. L. Somesekhar and Vineet Kumar, for the intervener. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah C.J. The appellant, who appeals by certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on probation for one year by the Board of Directors, Hindustan Steel Ltd., Ranchi with effect from Octo- ber 22, 1959. After completing his . period of probation he was employed on a contract for 5 years. Ex. P-3 is the Contract • of Service which he entered into with the Company. Under the terms of the contract ihere was a further period of probation. During the period of probation the Company could terininate his service without notice and without assigning any reason. On the completion of the period of probation, either side could termi- nate the co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.