Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4534 of 2004
PETITIONER:
M.D., BHADRA SHAHAKARI S.K. NIYAMITA
RESPONDENT:
PRESIDENT, CHITRADURGA MAZDOOR SANGH&ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/10/2006
BENCH:
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & TARUN CHATTERJEE
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
With
C.A.NO.1223/2006
C.A.NO.1844/2006
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4534/2004
This appeal was filed by the Managing Director, Bhadra Shahakari
S.K.Niyamita against the President, Chitradurga Mazdoor Sangh & Ors.
against the judgment dt.25.02.2003 passed by the High Court in
W.P.No.13524/1999. The Writ Petition was preferred by Chitradurga
District Mazdoor Sangh calling in question the inaction of the Management
in implementing the settlement produced as Annexure-A dt.14.05.1998 and
for a consequent direction to the Management to implement the
aforementioned settlement. The High Court in para 40 of its judgment
observed as follows :-
"In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the
writ petition with costs quantified at Rs.3000/- payable by the
first Respondent to the Petitioner’s counsel within two weeks. A
writ of mandamus shall issue to the management of the first
Respondent sugar factory to implement the settlement
Annexure-A dated 14.05.1998 and continue 51 workmen already
reinstated into service and pay 40% of backwages, if not already
paid, within a period of one month from today."
Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant-Management has
preferred the above Civil Appeal.
Mr.Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submitted that the appellant being a co-operative sugar factory
registered under the Co-operative Societies Act with a view to earn profit
for the members of its society is purely a non-governmental organisation
and will not fall within the definition of ’State’ under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the
respondent-Union was not maintainable. In support of his contention, the
learned senior counsel placed strong reliance on the Judgments in General
Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. vs. Satrughan
Nishad & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 639; Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas &
Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 733; Gayatri De vs. Mousumi Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd.& Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 90; Shrikant vs. Vasantrao & Ors., (2006)
2 SCC 682 and Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs.Indian Institute of Chemical
Biology & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 111. We have perused the above Judgments.
In our opinion, the Writ Petition filed by the respondent-Union against the
co-operative sugar factory is not maintainable. We, therefore answer the
said issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition in favour of the appellant-
Management. When the matter came up for hearing on the last
occasion, considering the long pendency of the matter before this Court
and also before the High Court and considering the plight of the workers
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
employed in the appellant-factory, we called for information as to whether
it would be possible for the appellant to pay back wages to the
respondent-workmen and the extent thereof. Pursuant to our direction,
Dr.Iftiqhar, the Managing Director of the appellant placed before us, at the
time of hearing, an affidavit duly signed on 26.07.2006. The same is taken
on record. We have perused the said affidavit. The appellant also, at the
time of hearing, furnished information about the financial commitment
required to pay back wages to the respondents in the Civil Appeal. The
learned senior counsel has submitted that in view of the financial situation
of the appellant being in the red, it is not possible for the appellant to
sustain additional financial burden in the nature of back wages to the 51
workmen represented by the respondent-Union. He has also further
submitted that it will not be able to make a financial commitment at this
stage, especially when the accumulated loss of the factory is Rs.4252.85
lacs as on 31.03.2006 and that the payment of back wages to the 51
workmen represented by the respondent-Union at this stage may cause
labour unrest, especially since the appellant sugar factory has not been
able to pay even monthly wages to its workmen and they have initiated
litigations and Contempt Petitions before various courts. As already
noticed, the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition ordered
payment of 40% back wages to the workmen by the Management.
Considering the critical financial situation of the appellant sugar factory,
we feel that a direction for payment of 10% back wages which comes to
Rs.9.52 lacs if now ordered would meet the ends of justice.
Mr.G.V.Chandrashekhar, learned counsel for the respondents has agreed
to receive 10% back wages amounting to Rs.9.52 lacs which represent the
back wages for the period 1992 to 1999. We, therefore, in the interest of
justice and in the interest of workers, direct the appellant-Management to
pay a sum of Rs.9.52 lacs by way of back wages for the period 1992 to
1999. The said amount shall be distributed among 51 workmen as per
their dues. The amount shall be distributed within a period of two months
by the Management itself.
We also placed on record the statement made by Mr.G.
V.Chandrashekhar, learned counsel for the respondent that the workers
have already been reinstated in service on 27.09.1999 by virtue of an order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Since the
reinstatement has been ordered by the High Court, the workers will not be
disturbed except in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of
accordingly. No costs.
C.A.No.1223 of 2006
The above appeal was filed by the Chitradurga Mazdoor Sangh
against the order passed by the High Court dt.26.05.2005 in
C.C.C.No.1437/2004 dismissing the Contempt Petition filed by the
appellant. In view of the Judgment now passed by us in
C.A.No.4534/2004, this appeal has become infructuous and the same is
dismissed.