S. N. Variava, J. - (1.) These appeals are against a Judgment dated 5th August, 1988 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The appellant is a Road Transport Corporation established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The respondents are employees of the appellant Corporation. The respondents had filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act claiming wages for holidays declared under the Andhra Pradesh Factories and Establishments (National Festival and other Holidays) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). This claim was contested by the appellant. The Appellant pointed out that under the said Act only 7 days holiday were to be given, whereas they had already granted 15 days holiday. The Appellant also contended that by virtue of Section 11(1)(c) of the said Act the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to them. The Appropriate Authority did not accept the contentions of the appellant and directed them to make payment for the work done by the Respondents on holidays declared under the said Act. The appeals filed by the appellant were also dismissed. The Appellants, therefore, filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which came to be disposed of by judgment dated 5th August, 1986. The High Court has held that the appellant is not under the control of the Central or the State Government and that, therefore, the provisions of the said Act are applicable. The High Court has held that even though an institution may be treated as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it did not necessarily mean that it was under the control of the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be. The High Court has relied upon Section 68-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and concluded, from this provision, that the Road Transport Corporation established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act is distinct from the Central or State Government. It is this judgment which has been assailed before us.
(3.) At this stage, it must be mentioned that before the High Court the appellant had relied upon a judgment delivered by a concurrent Bench of the same Court, wherein it has been held that once an establishment is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India it would clearly show that it was under the control of the Central or the State Government. The High Court noticed this judgment as commented as follows: "There can be no manner of doubt about the same and there is no incongruity in applying the same tests to Section 11(1)(c). It is seen from the judgment that the learned Judge examined the Memorandum and the Articles of Association of this company (H.M.T.) and held: "These articles are signed by the President of India and other officers of the Government who are described as Subscribers. These articles establish that the undertaking is under the deep and pervasive control of the Government." Hence, it is not correct to sate that he rested his conclusion solely on the ground that the company was treated as a State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence I am not presuaded to accept that any institution which is treated as a State within the meaning of Article 12, must be deemed to be under the control of the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be." On this basis, the High Court refused to follow that judgment. We have also read that judgment. It is clear from the reading of that judgment that it has been categorically held that both Article 12 of the Constitution of India and Section 11(1)(c) of the said Act, the words "under the control of the Government" are used. It has been held that the same meaning has to be ascribed to both. It has been held that if an establishment was a State within the meaning of Article 12, then it would be under the control of the Government for the purposes of Section 11(1)(c) of the said Act. Having so held, the Court then considered the Memorandum and Articles of Association by stating as under: "However, since this matter is argued at length that I shall also consider the nature of control exercised by the Central Government on the undertaking." It is thus clear that the decision that if an establishment is a State within the meaning of Article 12 then it is under the control of the Government for the purposes of Section 11(1)(c) is not based upon an examination of the Memorandum and Articles of Association. This decision was binding on the learned Judge hearing the Writ Petition. Judicial discipline required that he either follows it or refer the matter to a larger bench. Sitting singly the learned Judge could not have taken a different view on the specious ground that the decision was based on facts. It must be mentioned that, as is pointed out hereinafter, even on facts the conclusion of the Learned Judge is unsustainable.;