MYSORE PAPER MILLS LIMITED Vs. MYSORE PAPER MILLS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
January 08,2002
MYSORE PAPER MILLS LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
MYSORE PAPER MILLS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MANMOHAN SINGH JAITLA V. COMMR.,UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [REFERRED 16.]CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPN. LTD. V. BROJO NATH GANGULY [REFERRED 13.]
PRAGA TOOLS CORPORATION VS. C A IMANUAL [REFERRED]
SUKHDEV SINGH THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THE L 1 C LIMITED THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. BHAGATRAM SARDAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI:THE ASSOCIATION OF CLASS II OFFICERS 0 N G C:SHYAM LAL SHARMA:THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN [REFERRED 21.]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED 20.]
MANAGING DIRECTOR UTTAR PRADESH WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. VIJAY NARAYAN VAJPAYEE [REFERRED 19.]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED 17.]
SOM PRAKASH REKHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED 18.]
P K RAMACHANDRA IYER DR Y P GUPTA DR T S RAMAN OM PRAKASH KHAUDHURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED 15.]
A L KALRA VS. PROJECT AND EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED 14.]
TEKRAJ VASANDI ALIAS K L BASANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED 12.]
C V RAMAN STATE BANK STAFF UNION MADRAS CIRCLE A MANICKAVASAGAM SYNDICATE BANK SYNDICATE BANK BANK OF INDIA VS. MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF INDIA:STATE BANK OF INDIA:STATE BANK OF INDIA:P 0 LABOUR COURT GUNTUR:LABOUR COURT GUNTUR:P A STALIN [REFERRED 11.]
ANDI MUKTA SADGURU SHREE MUKTAJEE VANDAS SWAMI SUVARNA JAYANTI MAHOTSAV SMARAK TRUST VS. V R RUDANI [REFERRED 10.]
WS STAR ENTERPRISES VS. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LIMITED [REFERRED 9.]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D T C MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB [REFERRED 8.]
G B MAHAJAN VS. JALGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED 7.]
CHANDER MOHAN KHANNA VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING [REFERRED 6.]
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. M K GUPTA [REFERRED 5.]
LIC OF INDIA VS. CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE [REFERRED 4.]
VST INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. VST INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION [REFERRED 3.]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. NATIONAL UNION WATER FRONT WORKERS [REFERRED 2.]
Cited Judgements :-
NARENDRA AGRAWAL VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN IMMUNOLOGICALS LIMITED, HYDERABAD (A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD), ROAD NO.44, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-26] [REFERRED TO]INDIRA NIGAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR VS. CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCY [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. AMRUTLAL DHANJIBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2022-11-1684] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH S/O ANNA KHAKARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA VS. NATIONAL HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION [LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD VS. PARTHA SARATHI SEN ROY [LAWS(SC)-2013-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
R Karuppan VS. Patron of Chennai Rifle Club [LAWS(MAD)-2003-12-170] [REFERRED TO]
SRIKANT VS. VASANTRAO [LAWS(SC)-2006-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
IONIC METALLIKS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA IDBI OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-173] [REFERRED TO]
Abdul Gaffar VS. State Of Bihar [LAWS(JHAR)-2002-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
M JYOTHI RAJU SECUNDERABAD VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR NATIONAL CO OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF INDIA LIMITED NEW DELHI [LAWS(APH)-2003-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD VS. RAKESH CHANDRA GANGWAR [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-133] [REFERRED TO]
V K SODHI VS. LT GOVERNOR [LAWS(DLH)-2002-5-173] [REFERRED]
M P STATE CO OP DAIRY FEDN LTD VS. RAJNESH KUMAR JAMINDAR [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-111] [REFERRED TO]
VASANTRAO S O SHANKARRAO KALE VS. SHRIKANT S O ANANTRAO JOSHI [LAWS(BOM)-2004-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
R V DNYANSAGAR VS. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY ORGANISATION LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2003-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
M TIRUPATHAIAH VS. RAYALASEEMA PAPER MILLS LTD [LAWS(APH)-2003-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2004-3-264] [REFERRED TO]
JUNAID AMIN WANI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
M/S RAJPUR HYDRO POWER LTD. VS. M/S PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY [LAWS(SC)-2002-4-36] [REFERRED]
MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN IMMUNOLOGICALS LIMITED, HYDERABAD VS. NARENDRA AGARWAL [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
KULWINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-11-428] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMARI GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2003-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
LOGWELL FORGE LIMITED VS. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2009-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
K MARAPPAN VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-200] [REFERRED TO]
R ANBAZHAGAN DEPUTY MANAGER MECHANICAL TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT VS. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-143] [REFERRED TO]
ARVINDER GOYAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-148] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-1-328] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL MALIK VS. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CO [LAWS(ALL)-2005-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
TUNGRI EFFA VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2016-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
TENUGHAT VIDYUT NIGAM LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2004-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KARAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-331] [REFERRED TO]
R.M. RAMESH BABU AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ AMBARAM KAHAR VS. INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR VS. JAIN VISHVA BHARATI INSTITUTE [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LIMITED SULTANPUR UTTAR PRADESH VS. SATRUGHAN NISHAD [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. RADHEY SHYAM RAI [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
THE DISTRICT RED CROSS SOCIETY, SIRSA VS. RADHA KISHAN RAJPAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2004-11-90] [REFERRED]
K.L. ARORA VS. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(P&H)-2009-3-171] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Raju, J. -
(1.)The above appeals have been filed by the Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant-company," against the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 12-8-1998 in W.A. Nos. 1242-1243, insofar as it was held therein that the appellant-company is "State" within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India, though, their appeals against the order of the single Judge came to be allowed on the ground that impugned order of transfer against the 2nd respondent was not shown to be vitiated by mala fides or by any extraneous considerations and that the respondents have no legal right to challenge the said order of transfer made on administrative grounds, when plea of alleged mala fides and vindictiveness has not been substantiated.
(2.)The second respondent, said to be a post-graduate in Chemistry joined the services of the appellant-company on 10-8-1991 as Management Trainees and after successive career prospects came to be promoted as senior Superintendent (D.M. Plant) which came to be redesignated as Assistant Manager (D.M. Plant) on 7-9-1991. By a memorandum bearing reference No. FPA/TRF/97/384 dated 27-11-1997 he was transferred to the regional office Calcutta. The said order came to be challenged as vitiated by mala fides and illegality and one made with a view to victimize and prevent him from functioning as an Executive Member of the M.P.M. Officers' Association. Certain allegations to support such a claim were also made, and it is not necessary to advert to all those details, in view of certain subsequent developments and turn of events, in the writ petition filed by the respondents, a learned single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 4-3-1998 granted stay of the order of transfer dated 27-11-1997 confirming thereby the ex parte interim order of stay earlier granted on 24-2-1998 and rejecting the application of the appellant-company for vacating the same. Before the Division Bench, at the time of initial hearing of the appeals the two grounds of challenge urged were :
(i) The writ petitions filed were not maintainable against the appellant-company, since it is not a 'State or other authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and (ii) the order of transfer was quite in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract of service as well as Officers Service Rules and necessitated on account of the exigencies of work and the interests of business of the appellant-company and, therefore, not vitiated due to any mala fides or other extraneous considerations, as alleged. Since, in certain earlier decisions of the Division Bench, the appellant-company was held to be not "State" within the meaning of Art. 12 and it was considered to require reconsideration in the light of certain decisions of this Court, the matter was referred to a Full Bench for consideration.
(3.)Before the Full Bench, the following questions were taken up for consideration :
(1) Whether the Mysore Paper Mills which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and which is a Government company as defined in S. 617 of the Companies Act falls within the meaning of the word "State," as defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution of India
(2) Whether the action taken by the appellant-company transferring the 2nd respondent to Calcutta under the memo bearing No. FPA/TRF/384 dated 27-11-1997 is vitiated by mala fides and whether it is arbitrary and illegal
(2.)The second respondent, said to be a post-graduate in Chemistry joined the services of the appellant-company on 10-8-1991 as Management Trainees and after successive career prospects came to be promoted as senior Superintendent (D.M. Plant) which came to be redesignated as Assistant Manager (D.M. Plant) on 7-9-1991. By a memorandum bearing reference No. FPA/TRF/97/384 dated 27-11-1997 he was transferred to the regional office Calcutta. The said order came to be challenged as vitiated by mala fides and illegality and one made with a view to victimize and prevent him from functioning as an Executive Member of the M.P.M. Officers' Association. Certain allegations to support such a claim were also made, and it is not necessary to advert to all those details, in view of certain subsequent developments and turn of events, in the writ petition filed by the respondents, a learned single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 4-3-1998 granted stay of the order of transfer dated 27-11-1997 confirming thereby the ex parte interim order of stay earlier granted on 24-2-1998 and rejecting the application of the appellant-company for vacating the same. Before the Division Bench, at the time of initial hearing of the appeals the two grounds of challenge urged were :
(i) The writ petitions filed were not maintainable against the appellant-company, since it is not a 'State or other authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and (ii) the order of transfer was quite in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract of service as well as Officers Service Rules and necessitated on account of the exigencies of work and the interests of business of the appellant-company and, therefore, not vitiated due to any mala fides or other extraneous considerations, as alleged. Since, in certain earlier decisions of the Division Bench, the appellant-company was held to be not "State" within the meaning of Art. 12 and it was considered to require reconsideration in the light of certain decisions of this Court, the matter was referred to a Full Bench for consideration.
(3.)Before the Full Bench, the following questions were taken up for consideration :
(1) Whether the Mysore Paper Mills which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and which is a Government company as defined in S. 617 of the Companies Act falls within the meaning of the word "State," as defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution of India
(2) Whether the action taken by the appellant-company transferring the 2nd respondent to Calcutta under the memo bearing No. FPA/TRF/384 dated 27-11-1997 is vitiated by mala fides and whether it is arbitrary and illegal
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.