9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (12) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered into with the Company. Under the terms of the contract there. was a further period of probation. During the period of probation the Company could terminate his service without notice and without assigning any reason. On the completion of the period of probation, either side could terminate the contract by 3 months' notice without assigning any reason. The Company could also terminate the employment by 'giving in lieu of notice, three months' salary. This term was .applicable till three months immediately before the end of the period of 5 years. If a notice terminating the service was not ven three months before the close of the end of 5 years the contract was automatically extended till the incumbent became superannuated o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15, 1964 the General Manager ter- minated his services with effect from March 15, 1965, that is to say, after the expiry of three months' notice under the contract. It was stated in the order that the services were being terminated in terms of his employment. The appellant thereupon filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh claiming inter-alia that his services were wrongly terminated without giving him the protection granted by Art. 311 of the Constitution. He also complained of breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the enquiry was not proper. His contention was that although the action was ostensibly taken according to the terms of the contract of employment, he was real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Union. It was conceded before us that the appellant could not be said to belong to the civil service of the Union or the State. Art. 31 1, on which this contention is based, reads as follows : "31-1. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service or a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2)No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action- proposed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained in strength. In addition to the standing services there are certain posts which are outside the permanent services. The last category in Art. 311(l) therefore speaks-of such posts on the civil side as opposed to the military side. Incumbents of such posts also receive protection. In the present case the appellant did not belong to any of the permanent services. He held a post which was not borne on any of the standing services. It was, however,, a civil post as opposed to a military post. So far the appellant's case is clear but the clause speaks further that such posts must be under the Union or a State. - The question thus is whether the servant employed here can be said to have held the post under the Union or a State ? The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Calcutta case is the conclusion to draw in this appeal. We must, according to him, hold that there is no difference between Hindustan Steel Limited-and a Department of the Government and that the service under Hindustan Steel Limited is a service under the Union. On the other hand, in State of Bihar v. Union of India and Anr.( Civil Appeals Nos. 512-513 etc. of 1969 decide on 19.9.1969) Hindustan Steel Limited was not held to be a "State" for purposes of Art. 131. The question whether Hindustan Steel Limited was subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 was left open. In dealing with the above -conclusion, reference was made to the incorporation of Hindus-tan Steel Limited as an independent company and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess held that in the eye of law the company was a separate entity and had a separate legal existence. In our judgment the decision in the -Patna case is correct. . It has also the support of a decision re-ported in Ram Babu Rathaur v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India(A.I.R. 1961 All. 503.) and another in Damodar Valley ,'Corporation v. Provat ROY(LX C.W.N. 1023). Our brother Ramaswami relied in particular upon an English case Tamlin v. Hannaford(1). In that case it was held in relation to a business that although the minister was really incharge, the corporation was different from. the Crown and the services of the corporation were not civil services. Justice P. B. Mukherjee of the Calcutta High Court, to. whose j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
