Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between the General Manager of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and the workmen regarding the termination of their services. The workmen filed writ applications in the Allahabad High Court, claiming they had worked for the Mill for periods ranging from 5 to 12 years and were entitled to protection under Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Mill contended that it was a co-operative society and not an instrumentality of the State, thus the High Court lacked jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the workmen, quashing their termination and directing their regularization. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench, prompting the Mill to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Mill qualified as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, applying established tests from previous judgments. It concluded that the Mill did not meet the criteria, as it was not wholly government-controlled and operated independently. The court also addressed the issue of writ jurisdiction, stating that the Mill's activities did not constitute a public function, thus the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 was not applicable. Furthermore, the court identified disputed questions of fact regarding the workmen's employment status, which could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgments, and directed the parties to pursue their claims under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with each party bearing its own costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Instrumentality of the State - Definition and Tests - Article 12 of the Constitution - The court held that the Mill, being a co-operative society, did not qualify as an instrumentality of the State as it did not meet the necessary tests, including government control and financial dependence. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's decision was set aside, directing the parties to resolve the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Paras 1-5). B) Writ Jurisdiction - Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution - The court determined that the High Court could not entertain the writ applications as the Mill's operations did not involve a public function, thus mandamus could not be issued against it. (Paras 6-8). C) Industrial Disputes - Disputed Questions of Fact - The court noted that the claims regarding the workmen's employment status and duration of service were disputed and could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction, necessitating adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Mill is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ applications.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgments, and dismissed the writ applications, directing the parties to resolve their disputes under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction
- Article 12
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- instrumentality of the State
- public function
- disputed questions of fact
