NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA Vs. NAFED PROCESSED FOOD COOERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as NAFED, for short) has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against judgment dated 19/07/1999 rendered by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 6239 of 1998. The writ petition was filed by two petitioners (respondents herein) namely, NAFED Processed Foods Employees' Union (Regd.), and NAFED Process Foods Karamchari (Workers) Union.By the impugned judgment the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition No. 6239 of 1998 of the respondents herein has been allowed. Orders passed by the appellant herein under Clause 17(IV)(d) of the Staff Regulations dated 23/ 24/12/1998, 23rd December, 1998, 4/0101/1999 and 5/01/1999 in respect of 67 employees have been set aside holding that they are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and therefore amounted to illegal and arbitrary mode of retrenchment. It may be mentioned that the appellant had taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that NAFED is not a "State" and /or "instrumentality or agency of State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking provisions of Article 14 thereof was not maintainable. Before deciding the petition on merits, the learned Single Judge negatived this contention holding that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against NAFED. The preliminary argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is aimed at challenging this aspect of the judgment. If the Writ Petition filed by the respondents is held to be not-maintainable, observations contained in the judgment on merits will be rendered otiose.

(2.) Before dealing with the contentions of the respective parties it would be appropriate to notice, in the first instance, the approach adopted by learned Single Judge in determining this question. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Single Judge recorded the contention of both the parties and also observed that the respondents herein had relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Ahmad and Company, Madras and Others V. Union of India reported in AIR 1982 Mad. 247 wherein Court held NAFED to be a "State" and the appellant had relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in J.S. Arneja V. National Co-operative Consumers Federation of India Ltd. and Others reported in 1994 (28) DRJ (DB) 546 in relation to National Cooperative Consumers Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as NCCF, for short) holding NCCF not to be a "State". However, thereafter the learned Single Judge opined that it was not necessary to examine which judgment was applicable to the facts of this case in view of the orders passed by Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 89 of 1989 relating to NAFED inasmuch as notwithstanding the preliminary objection raised by NAFED in that case that it was not a "State", the Supreme Court had decided the matter on merits. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment to this effect reads as under: However, in my view, it is not necessary to go into this matter to test whether the Madras High Court's view or the view taken by this Hon'ble Court is applicable to the facts of the present case because writ petition No. 89/1989 was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the preliminary objection of the respondent that NAFED. is not a 'State' had also been taken by the respondent No. 2/NAFED in the writ proceedings before the Supreme Court. In spite of the preliminary objections specifically taken before the Supreme Court in paragraph 'C' of the counter affidavit by NAFED to the effect that NAFED was not 'State" or 'authority' ' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court had decided the said writ petition on merits on 16.2.1995 and the Supreme 'Court had entertained a writ petition even under-Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the said preliminary objection in paragraph 'C' taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by NAFED/ respondent No. 2 herein reads as under:

(3.) The aforesaid discussion shows that while holding NAFED to be a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution the learned Single Judge has been persuaded by the fact that notwithstanding objection to the maintainability of the aforesaid Writ Petition before the Supreme Court filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court decided the Writ Petition on merits. We were shown Order dated 16/02/1995 passed by Supreme Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition. Perusal thereof shows that the Supreme Court has not even ad verted to the question as to whether NAFED is a "State" and /or "instrumentality or agency of the State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Even the contention in this respect is not noted in the Order dated 16/02/1995. Order dated 16/02/1995 is a brief Order and it wld be appropriate to reproduce the same in entirety: