Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy, (2013) 8 SCC 345
Constitution of India
Arts. 12, 298 and 226 - State"/other authorities" under Art. 12 - Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., a government company, if -
Termination of employees - Enforceability of terms and conditions of employment contract through writ jurisdiction - Test
of deep and pervasive control, and not merely regulatory control, exercised by Government over company for
determining - Held, on a detailed examination of factors like formation of appellant Company, its objectives, functions,
management and control, financial aid received by it, functional and administrative control, extent of its domination by
Government and control of Government not being merely regulatory, held, renders it an authority" under Art. 12
amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court - Hence, employment contracts of appellant's employees are subject to writ
jurisdiction,
Constitution of India
Arts. 12 and 226 - Sovereign functions - What are - Held, sovereign functions should be restricted to those functions,
which are primarily inalienable, and which can be performed by the State alone - Every governmental function need not
be sovereign - The nature of the body's powers and the manner in which they are exercised is to be taken into
consideration therefore, mere dealing in a subject by the State, or the monopoly of the State in a particular field, would
not render an enterprise sovereign in nature,
Constitution of India
Art. 12 - State"/Other authorities" - Body when falls within scope of State" - Held, it is difficult to provide an exhaustive
definition of term authorities" which would fall within ambit of Art. 12 - Only an inclusive definition is possible - Expansion
of judicial definition of the term State" - It is not easy to determine which duties form part of private action and which form
State action - Hence, reiterated, question in each case, would be whether in light of the cumulative facts as established,
the body concerned, a government company in the present case, is financially, functionally and administratively under
the control of the Government - Such control must be particular to the body in question, and not general in nature - It
must also be deep and pervasive - Control should not be merely regulatory, (2013) 8 SCC 345-C
Constitution of India
Arts. 14, 16, 298, 226 and 32 - Contracts entered into by State/instrumentalities of State (government company in this
case which was found to fall within definition of State") - Terms and conditions of employment - Inequality in bargaining
power between contracting parties where standard form of contract is the rule - Unfair, untenable, or an irrational clause
in a contract is amenable to judicial review - Held, State/State instrumentality cannot impose unconstitutional conditions
in statutory rules/regulations vis--vis its employees in order to terminate services of its permanent employees in
accordance with such terms and conditions - Unfair and unreasonable contracts or an unfair or unreasonable clause(s) in
a contract, entered into by parties who do not enjoy equal bargaining power, are hit by S. 23 of Contract Act and are
against public policy and should be struck down - Where inequality of bargaining power is the result of great disparity
between the economic strengths of contracting parties, aforesaid principle automatically applies, (2013) 8 SCC 345-D
Constitution of India
Arts. 16, 14, 12 and 298 - Instrumentalities of State/Other authorities" (government company) - Employment in - Terms
and conditions of service - Termination of employees - Termination of services of employee, at sole discretion of
government company by giving three months' notice in writing, without assigning any reason for such decision, vide
clause in letter of appointment - Impermissibility - Held, hire and fire" policy adopted by appellant Company, and terms
and conditions incorporated in its Manual of Officers of 1976, cannot be held to be justifiable, and being arbitrary, cannot
be enforced - Cl. 11 of appointment letter is an unconscionable clause - Contract of employment also held to be void to
such extent - Directed, that all consequential benefits to be paid to employees concerned/their LRs, (2013) 8 SCC 345-E
Service Law
Termination of service
Right of employer which is State" or instrumentality of State to terminate service without assigning any reason,
dispensing with inquiry - Held, such a procedure is violative of basic requirements of natural justice, (2013) 8 SCC 345-F
No comments:
Post a Comment