AJOY KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS. ETC. v. 1- UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

A.K'·. BANERJEE v. UNION (Mukharjil J.) 289 A '\'!alate the principles· of article 14 of the Constitution. This principle :is too well-settlM now to be .reiterated by reference to cases. There is intelligible basis for differentiation. Whether the same result. or better, result could have been achieved and better basis of differentia- .·tion evplved is wit~in the domain of legislature and must be left to 'tpe wisdom ~f the legislatu,re. Had it ~een held that the scheme of ·. B · 198\l was within the authodty given by· the Act, we would have rejected the challenge to the Act and the scheme under article 14 ·()f the Constitutioil. • It was also urged before us on behalf of the respondents that ·c the petitioners being employees of public sector undertakings, and ~these are economic instrumentalities pf the State and having regard· to the contents and .contour of the conc~pt ·of public employment .as developed 'in the Iridian legal system·, an employee in a public -sector ·can be approximated with and tre~ted as a government 'l!iervant. Having regard to the principles which govern the employer D '. and employee relationship in the governmental ·sectors, .the condi- ·.tions of service of employees in public employment should be -exclusively governed by the statute and by the rules and regulations 'framed thereunder. Predication of such power would necessarily exclude the provisions oflndustrial . Disputes Act and the principles of collective bargaining just as these would exclude the principles of E ~o.ntractual relationship in such m~tters. The point is interestitJ.g. Howe~er, in the view we have taken; we neep p.ot discuss this aspect ) :any further. · . ·

It was further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the· ntionale, justification and the genesis of the law of nationalisation being the creation of economic instrumentalities to -subserve the .constitutional and adfll'tinistrative goals of governance in a social welfare society, the running of public s.ector undertakings is neither for profit earn~ng of the management nor for sharing such profits with the workmen alone but to utilise the investible .funds available as a result of such ventures and undertakings for socially-oriented goals laid down by the governmental· policies operating on the said sectors. In this connection reference was made before us to the decision in the case. of State'of Karnataka & Anr. etc.·~. Rangan~tha .Reddy & Anr. etc.(l) H J. {191$] 1 S.C.R. 64'1 at pages 672, 676 & 691.

29J SUPRB~IE eouar:REP.ORTS · [193-lj 3· S.C.R~-

. A·. . . . .>(!~pfoy'fuent in tb(!:pubHc s:ectot .undertakings e·rijoy.s. a statuh~ ·· n·was submitted th.a t botlfbistbtically ·as well as a matter of.Hrw, the~ ': publiC"·sectdr utidertakli)gs being the economic .insti:timeritatrties or· .tlie Stite a~d dischargin~· the ·obligations which tlie Stafe·have, the· of employees such undertakings iit principle. cannot be distinguished~ from the employees in the govetninennervices~ In this c6nnection · to B our.atterition was drawn the case of Suklulev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagai·. .• Ram Sardar Singh .Raghuvanshf & :4nr:e) It \Y3.S urged that in cons- all _,. -. ' . : .. titutional de_mocracies, the relationship' between· the govemmcnfand. .· the civil service i~ exciusively gover~ed by the statutory .provisions.. . . -. with the power ·in the . Govern~enfto· unil:Herally alter the condi- C_ tionsofservice ?~th~ g~v~rnment em.pl9yees. Reference \vas. made't~ - / . "The Law of CIVII.Servtce' by Kaplan. It was furtber ·subm1tted that. . .::_ iri-Jndi~-· the ~aw, js tbat'.origin ·()f the Gover~ment ~ervice might be- ' contractual but once app~inted t~ a post under the Government, the· . _gove~riment servant acquires a status ~nd ..the rights and ob"iigations.. . are . no longer dependenf<ln the ·.. . consent o( .both the· parties . but by D statut•.

We wo.uld have considered.th~se aspects had it been ncc~ss~ry· for ~s to do so but iUs not nece_ssary in · the ·view· taken. We · may- -

E: . reiterate -that . . article- ·..14 does not . prevent . . legislature . ducing a n;fofm i.e. by applying the legisla.tion to some institutions . from intro~ ',,. ;

_or · objects _or areas only according . to the exigency of'the situation· . . . . and further classification of selection can b:: -~ust~ ined on ·historical: . . -{ . reasons or reasons of administrative . exigency or piece-meal method . . of introducing reforms. The law need not apply . to au · the persons- .in · the sense of having a universal application to all peisons. A law F ca~ be sustained if it ueals equally with the people of _,veil-defined ·: class-employees of insurance c_ompanies as' such and such a law is. . . . not open· to the charge of denial .of equal pro(e<;tion. on the ground · . . that it had. not. .. application . .. . to other .persons. ' " .· . · ~ ·· · · ·

In the view we have taken of the matter•. these· applications. G succeed and theimpugned ·s-cheme of 1980'must be hc:ld to be ·bad . · as beyond .the scope . of the authority of the ~entral Government,. .. · under the Generai Insurance Business · (Nationalisation) . Act, 1972. . ·. . : The operation of the scheme _has been restrained by the order passed . a~ interin · order in._th.ese cases: The impugned scheme is therefore- .

,. . . · . ·quashed~ and· ··will n·o( J>e given effect. to~. The parties.'will be at · - H ·. . . >. . . . .. . •.

~· [1975]3 S.C.R~ 619 at page 646. .. -·_ :. - ·

A.K. BANERJEE v. UNION • (Mukharji, J.) 291 • liberty to adjust theif rights as if the scheme had not been framed. A The application for intervention isallowed. Let appropriate writs be issued quashing the-~tcheme of 1980. This, however, will not prevent the Government, if it so advised, to' frame any appropriate legis~ 1ation or make·any appropriate amendment giving power to Central .Government to frame any .scheme as it considers fit and pre;>per. In . the facts and circumstances of these cases and specially in view of B the fact that petitioners had themselves'at one point of time wanted that new 1cheme be framed ·by the Central Government, we direct that parties will pay andbear theit own costs in all these matters. The rules are made absolute ~o the extetlt indicated above.

N.V.:K. Petitions allowed.