Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1407 - HC - Companies LawCorrectness of termination orders of petitioners from employment - unlawful termination and restoration to service - preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent-employer is that writ petition is not maintainable as it is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution - Whether CUPGL can be said to be ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution? - Held that:- Position of CUPGL in the case in hand, it cannot be doubted that its functional control is in the hands of Public Sector Companies like, BPCL, GAIL and IGL. Clause 120 of Article of Association of CUPGL shows that so long as holding is equal, both i.e. BPCL and GAIL will have equal representation in the Board. Chairman of Board of CUPGL shall be either a whole time Director of GAIL or Chairman or Managing Director of BPCL or his nominee. Therefore, GAIL and BPCL both have pervasive control in CUPGL. Since holding Companies are Central Government Companies, which have pervasive control, and BPCL having already been held to be 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution, we do not find any hesitation in holding that CUPGL is an instrumentality of State and within the ambit of term 'other authorities' under Article 12 of Constitution of India it is a 'State' within Article 12. Question-(1), therefore, is answered accordingly. Relationship between Government (employer) and Government Servant (employee) is not like an ordinary contract of service between a master and servant. The legal relationship is something entirely different, something in the nature of status. In the language of jurisprudence, 'status' is a condition of membership of a group, whereof powers and duties are exclusively determined by law and not by agreement between the parties concerned. Thus, where appointment and conditions of service are governed by Statute, relationship of 'employer' and 'employee' is that of 'status' and not a mere contract. However, in other cases, it is purely a contract of service resulting in a relationship of ordinary master and servant. In the present case also, relationship of employment between petitioner and CUPGL is purely and simply an ordinary contract of service which is not governed by any statute or statutory provision. In such cases, a contract of service cannot be sought to be enforced by Court of law by giving relief of reinstatement or continuance in employment as this relief is barred under Act, 1963. In Vidya Ram Misra Vs. Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain College (1972 (1) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURT) Court said that it is well settled that when there is a termination of a contract of service, a declaration that the contract of service still subsists would not be made in the absence of special circumstances, because of the principle that Courts do not ordinarily enforce specific performance of contract of service.
|