GENERAL MANAGER, KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD., SULTANPUR, U.P. versus SATRUGHAN NISHAD AND ORS.

GENERAL MANAGER, KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD., SULTANPUR, U.P. versus SATRUGHAN NISHAD AND ORS.

The co-operative sugar mill is not 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 as it fails to satisfy the cumulative tests—State Government holds only 50% shares, lacks deep and pervasive control, operates autonomously, and its activities do not amount to public functions; thus, writ jurisdiction under Article 226...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P.; Respondents: Satrughan Nishad and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Division Bench Judgment Affirming Single Judge Order
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court judgments set aside; writ applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Article 12 Interpretation, Maintainability of Writ Petition Under Article 226, Instrumentality or Agency of Government, Industrial Disputes Act Applicability
Constitutional Law Labour Law Article 12 Interpretation Maintainability of Writ Petition Under Article 226 Instrumentality or Agency of Government Industrial Disputes Act Applicability

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P.

Appellant

Satrughan Nishad and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Division Bench Judgment Affirming Single Judge Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a co-operative sugar mill is 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked against the co-operative sugar mill
  3. 3 Whether termination orders and regularisation directions issued are valid

Ratio Decidendi

The co-operative sugar mill is not 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 as it fails to satisfy the cumulative tests—State Government holds only 50% shares, lacks deep and pervasive control, operates autonomously, and its activities do not amount to public functions; thus, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not lie against the mill for enforcement of workmen rights.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court judgments set aside; writ applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Parties relegated to raise an industrial dispute for adjudication under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.