MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTTAR PRADESH WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR. versus VINAY NARAYAN VAJPAYEE

CHINNAPPA J.-The respondent-employee was dismissed from service. The employer dismissed him, without observing the principles of natural justice. This has been found by the High Court who quashed the order of dismissal in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The employer has appealed. The employer claims that a declaration to enforce a contract of personal service cannot be granted by the Court. The only remedy of the employee, he pleads, is to file a suit for damages for wrongful dis'missal. The answer of the employee is that the employer is a statutory Corporation whose employees have statutory status, and that the employer is bound by the regulations made under the statute as also to observe the principles of natural justice. Breach of the regulations or failure to observe the principles of natural justice entitles the employee to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

pp. 783–784, margin F

The question whether breach of statutory regulations or failures to observe the principles of natural justice by a statutory Corporation w:ll entitle an employee of such Corporation to claim a declaration of continuance in service and the question whether the employee is entitled to the protection of Arts. 14 and 16 against the Corporation were considered at great length in Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanslzi & Anr.(1) The question as to who may be considered to be agencies or instrumentalities of the Government was also considered, again at some length, by this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shelly v. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors.(')

p. 784, margin B

I find it very hard indeed to discover any distinction, on principle, between a person directly under the employment of the Goverrnnent and a person under the employment of an agency or instrumentality of the Government or a Corporation, set up under a statqte or incorporated but wholly owned by the Government. It is self evident and trite to say that the function of the State has long since ceased to be confined to 'the preservation of the public peace. the exaction of taxes and the defence of its frontiers. It is now the function of the State to secure 'social, economic and political justice·. to preserve 'liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship', and to ensure 'equality of status and of opportunity'. That is the proclamation of the people in the preamble to the Constitution. The desire to attain these objectives has necessarily resulted in intense Governmental activity in manifold ways. Legislative and executive activity have reached very far and have touched very many aspects of a Gitizen's life. The Government, directly or through the Corporations, set up by it or owned by it, now owns or manages, a large number of industries and institutions. It is the biggest builder in the country. Mammoth and minor irrigation projects, heavy and light engineering projects, projects of various kinds are undertaken by the Government. The Government is also the biggest trader in the country. The State and the multitudinous agencies and Corporations set up by it are the principal purchasers of the produce and

p. 784, margin D

785

p. 785

(Channappa Reddy, !.) the products of our country and they control a vast and complex machinery of distril;JUtion. The Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, Corporations set up by the Government under statutes and Corporations incorporated under the Companies Act but owned by the Government have thus become the biggest employers in the country. There is no good reason why, if Government is bound to observe the equality clauses of the c0nstitution in the matter of employment and in its dealings with the employees, the Corparations set up or owned by the Government should not be equally bound and why, instead, such Corporations could become citadels of patronage and arbitrary action. In a country like ours which teems with population, where the State, its agencies, its instrumentalities and its Corporations are the biggest employers and where millions seek employment and security, to confirm the applicability of the equality clauses of the constitution, in relation to matters of employment, strictly to direct employment under the Government is perhaps to mock at the Constitution and th~ people. Some element of public, employment is all that is necess·ary to take the employee beyond the reach of the rule which denies him access to a Court so enforce a contract of employment and denies him the protection o1' Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. After all employment in the public; sector has grown to vast dimensions and employees in the public sector often discharge as onerous duties as civil servants and participate in activities vital to our country's economy. In growing realization of the importance of employment in the public sector, Parliament and the Legislatures of the States have declared persons in the service of local authoritie8, Government companies and statutory corporations as public servants and, extended to them by express enactment the protection usually extended to civil servants from suits and prosecution. It is, therefore, but right that the independence and integrity of those employed in the public sector should be secured as much as the independence and integrity of civil servants.

p. 785

I agree with what has been said by my brother Sarkaria .r. I have added a few lines to emphasise some aspects of the problem. PB.R. Appeal dismissed.

p. 785, margin F