- (1.) THE U. P. State Sugar Corporation Karamchari Associa tion through its President, P. R. Raha, one another D. N. Pandey, Assistant Grade III, petitioner Nos. 1, 2 3 respectively, have filed the present writ petition against the State of U. P. , Secretary, Sugar Cane Development Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow the U. P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, respondents, Nos. 1, 2 3 to impugn the action of the respondents, in effect, to undertake a sale of its units at Meerut, Bareilly, Barabanki, Burhwal, Nawabganj, Munderwa, Bailtalpur, Ghughli , in addition, the units at Chitauni, Deoria, Pipraich, Bhatani, Ramkola, Lakshmiganj, Shahganj, Ghatampur, Dariyapur, Nganj, Maholi, Hardoi, Barabanki, Rampur aid Chhatta. THE notices announcing the sale are appended as Annexures 6 11 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioners are the staff employees of the U. P. State Sugar Corporation, a Public Sector undertaking, otherwise registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956. THE U. P. State Sugar Corporation (herein after referred to as the Corporation), apparently, has learnt the lesson of the day that it may not be the forte of State enterprise to run a business or an industrial venture. Falling in line with the concept of laissez fairs shed ding the experiment which did not succeed, of controlling the means of produc tion distribution of goods, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh its public sector enterprises have taken to shed their assets offered them to entrepreneurs for public sale. The three broad issues on which the employees of the Corporation have assailed the action of selling the assets of the Corporation are: Firstly, that the Corporation ought not to, cannot. They oppose the move of selling the sugar factories held by the corporation. The contention is that the corporation should continue to run the sugar factories. Secondly, if the cor poration cannot the workers the staff are available for running the factories, where they are employed. Thirdly, the next challenge, they have confronted the corporation with, is that certain sugar factories, such as those which are sick the matter of their sickness is actively engaging the atten tion of the Board for Industrial Financial Reconstruction (henceforth referred to as 'the Board'), constituted under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1985') cannot be sold in any case. The contention is that the corporation has to first seek leave of the Board before alienating any asset of the corporation. Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, the Court has, in no uncertain terms, indicated to the petitioners that where the State has decided not to be an entrepreneur or an industrialist or a businessman, or, for that matter, learnt the hard lesson that it could be neither, is one of the policy of the Government. , it is not the business of the Court to question the policies of the Govern ment in power as long as it does not violate the Constitution of- India or any law framed under its sanction. In this regard, the Court has no hesitation in declaring to the petitioners that, if this is the only challenge on which the petition has been based, then, the Court would not interfere to prescribe Parameters for the Government to spell out how it should run its business industries, as these are matters which Basically reflect the personality of the Government in choosing or electing the path of its administration adventurism in trade business. Insofar as the vested right of the peti tioners is concerned, i. e,, to continue in employment, it has been assured. The sale of the industries after the State Government or its public sector under takings are to got rid of it, goes as a package deal to whoever offers the highest price. The job guarantee is a stipulation goes with the industries and the new employer is obliged to find the employees of the State enterprises continue the employment, unless there is an amicable equitable settlement by which the employer the employee part company with what is known as golden handshake. But, the other two submissions are fundamental go to the root of the matter that whatever a State may do in changing the pattern of its trade commerce industry, the law cannot be violated.
(3.) IT is a common knowledge, though not disputed in proceedings of" this case, that in the absence of an incentive element in State Government run industries enterprises Barring a few exceptions, State ventures have usually run amuck, saddling the people with a huge bill to make up for the ill-advised State run industries where bureaucrats yearned to become corporate executives. But, they tied themselves up in knots of red ribbon tapes, when they could neither shed their power got entangled in the use of it. To be an industrialist, one has to be a floor shift mechanic a corpo rate executive, both civil servants would not like to spoil their collars cuffs, but, would like to wear cravats links on double cuffs in the fashion of a corporate image. In detail, the submissions of the petitioners are that : Firstly, the decision of the corporation for selling its units, as a preclude to the scheme of liberalisation, was confined to such units which were incurring losses. The petitioners refer to the policy decision of the corporation, recorded in the minu tes, dated 15th October, 1993, appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.;