- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The respondent 1 was appointed as a contingent worker on the post of Photographer-cum-Clerk with the Tripura State Cooperative Union limited, Appellant 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cooperative Union") on 25/6/1986. He was being paid a fixed amount of Rs. 600. 00 per month. In May 1992 he filed writ petition (Civil Rule No. 129 of 1992 in the Gauhati Highcourt, Agartala bench, seeking the relief of equal pay for equal work on the ground that photographers in other government departments were being paid higher pay for doing the same work. He also sought regularisation on the post. The learned Single Judge of the High court, by judgment dated 24/5/1993, allowed the said writ petition and directed that Respondent 1 be regularised in the regular pay scale on the post of Photographer with effect from 1/7/1986. Writ Appeal No. 8 of 1993 filed by the appellants against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been dismissed by the division bench of the High court by the impugned judgment dated 30/9/1994. The learned Judges constituting the division bench of the High court have held that the Cooperative Union was "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution since it is under the control of the State government of tripura. The learned Judges have further held that Respondent 1 possesses the qualifications required of a photographer and had, in fact, been working in all these years as a photographer and, therefore, there was no reason why an instrumentality of the State should deny him the benefits of the well-recognised principle of equal pay for equal work. The division bench of the High court has also upheld the direction given by the learned Single judge regarding regularisation of respondent 1 on the post of Photographer. The learned Judges have distinguished the decisions of this court in State of haryana v. Piara Singh , and Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' union v. Delhi Admn. , on the ground that the present case is of a lone employee.
(3.) We find it difficult to agree with the said view of the learned Judges of the High court. On the question whether the Cooperative Union can be regarded as "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution we find that the high court has not dealt with the nature and extent of the control exercised by the State government over the Cooperative Union. Though reference has been made by the High court to the decisions of this court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi , International Airport Authorities case , Indian council of Agricultural Research case , and All India Sainik Schools employees' Assn. case , but the High court has not considered the matter in the light of the tests laid down by this court for determining whether a particular undertaking is an instrumentality of the State and can be regarded as "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution.;