B.P. SRIVASTAVA Vs. DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, ISA NAGAR PALACE, NEW HYDERABAD, LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, which has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the petitioner challenges an order of termination of his services (Annexure 5-A) by the Deputy Managing Director of the U. P. State Ware-Housing Corporation.

(2.) Shortly stated, the material facts underlying the controversy are these. The petitioner was a routine clerk employed in the State Ware-Housing Corporation, a statutory corporate body created under Sec. 18(1) of the Ware-Housing Corporation Act (to be hereinafter referred as the Act), established for the purpose of ware-housing of agricultural produce and certain other commodities and for matters connected therewith. The general superintendence and management of the affairs of the State Ware-housing Corporation vests in a Board of Directors which, amongst other Directors, consists of a Managing Director appointed by the Government in consultation with the Directors and with the previous approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation may entrust or delegate to him the Board of Directors is required to act on business principles having regard to public interest and is guided by such instructions on questions of policy as may be given to them by the State Government or the Central Warehousing Corporation. The functions of the State Warehousing Corporation extend to matters, namely, to acquire and build godowns and warehouses, run warehouses for the storage of agricultural produce, seeds, manures, fertlizers, agricultural implements and notified commodities, arrange facilities for the transport of agricultural produce, seeds, manures, fertilizers, agricultural implements etc. A State Warehousing Corporation is to have an executive committee consisting of the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the Managing Director and three other Directors chosen in the prescribed manner subject to the direction of the board of Directors the executive committee is competent to deal with any matter within the competence of the Corporation. A Warehousing Corporation is empowered, with the previous approval of the Government, to make regulations not inconsistent with the Act and in particular such regulations may provide (a) the conditions of service of and the remuneration payable to the officers and other employees of the Warehousing Corporation and (b) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which the shares of the Central Warehousing Corporation may be transferred. A State Ware housing Corporation is constituted with perpetual succession and a seal and is an autonomous body for the purpose of business, which it has to carry on according to the rules and subject to the directions on questions of policy by the State Government or the Central Warehousing Corporation. On a perusal of the provisions of the Act it is demonstrably clear that the activity of a State Warehousing Corporation is only a business activity and it possesses no power which in any manner can be exercised to affect the activities of other citizens. It is not a body charged with the statutory duty of implementing any law which effects in any manner any member of the public. Neither can it be construed as a body constituted by the Legislature in implementation of the Directive principles of the State policy as laid down in Part 4 of the Constitution.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that he was appointed by the Managing Director (Annexure 3) in pursuance of the Staff Regulations V (Annexure 4), that after completing the period of probation, which was not extended, he should be deemed to have been confirmed by the operation of Para 8(l) of the Staff Regulations and that the Deputy Managing Director by terminating his employment treating him as a temporary servant of the Corporation committed the breach of the Staff Regulations in as much as no opportunity to show cause against the proposed termination, as required by Para 11(2) was afforded and further the appointing authority being the Managing Director, the Deputy Managing Director could not in law dispense with the petitioner's services.