LexSTATE OF ASSAM versus BARAK UPATYAKA D.U. KARMACHARI SANSTHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 467 STATE OF ASSAM A V. BARAK UPATYAKA D.U. KARMACHARI SANSTHA Civil Appeal No. 6492 of 2002 MARCH 17, 2009 B [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ petition - Directions issued to State Government to release grants to Co-operative Society to enable it to pay salaries to employees c of Society - Justification of - Held: Co~operative society even if 'State' under Article 12, was independent juristic entity and could not have been identified with or treated as State Government - State government released grant-in-aid to ~ Society continuously for some years to meet its development activities or salaries - It does not mean that State Government D is to bear and pay salaries of employees for all times to come - Employees have no right to get their salaries from State Government - Appropriate remedy is under the iabour legislation or Co-operative Societies Act - Assam Co- operative Societies Act, 1949 - s. 43. E Interim order - Precedential value of - Held: Precedent is a judicial decision containing a principle, which forms an authoritative element termed as ratio decidendi - Interim order which does not finally and conclusively decide an issue cannot F be a precedent - Any reasons assigned in support of such non-final interim order containing prima facie findings, are only tentative and have no value as precedents - Precedent. The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether the High Court was justified in G directing the State Government to sanction financial assistance by way of grant-in-aid to Cachar and Karimganj District Milk Producers' Co-operative Union Limited-Co- 467 H 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. A operative society so as to enable it to pay the salary and other emoluments of its employees. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Cachar and Karimganj District Milk s Producers' Co-operativt; Jnion Limited (CAMUL) is a co- operative society registered under those provisions of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949. Section 85 of the saij Act provides that every registered society ~hall be deemed to be a body corporat~ by the r;:ime under which c it is registered, with peroetual succession and a common seal, and with power to hold property, to enter into contracts, institute and defend suits and other le.gal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purposes for which it was constituted. Therefore, CAMUL, 0 even if it was 'state' for purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950, was an independent juristic entity and could not have been identified with or treated as the state government. [Para 5] [474-D-E] 1.2 Section 43 of the Act provides that notwith- E standing anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the State Government may grant loans or give financial assistance in any form to any registered society. Therefore, the fact that the state government had given financial assistance in the form of grant-in-aid to CAMUL F continuously for some years, either to meet its development activities or for even meeting the salaries, does not mean that state government is responsible to bear and pay the salaries and emoluments of the employees of CAMUL or other liabilities of CAMUL. Nor G can the state government be made liable for extension of financial assistance for all times to come, to cover the payment of salaries of employees of CAMUL. If the salaries are not paid, the remedy of the employees of CAMUL is to proceed against CAMUL, in accordance with H law, by approaching the forum under the appropriate STATE OF ASSAM V. BARAK UPATYAKA D.U. 469 KARMACHARISANSTHA labour legislation or the Co-operative Societies Act. But a A trade union representing the employees of a co-operative society cannot, by filing a writ petition, require the Government to bear and pay the salaries of the employees of the co-operative society, howsoever pervasive, the control of the state government, over such society. Nor is B any right created to demand the continuance of financial assistance to a co-operative society, on the ground that such assistance has been extended by the government, for several years. The respondent has not been able to show any right in the employees of CAMUL against the C state government, or any obligation on the part of the state government with reference to the salaries/emoluments
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.