BAIDYANATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KATIHAR Jute Mills Limited was the owner of an Industrial Unit. The assets and properties of the said Industrial Unit were mortgaged in favour of Bihar State Financial Corporation. The mortgagor failed to discharge the mortgage debts, in consequence thereof, the mortgagee in exercise of powers under Sections 29 & 30 of the State Financial Corporations Act took over the mortgaged assets and properties. Those were thereupon leased in favour of Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation (in short "BSIDC"). The said Corporation then put up an advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the post in which the petitioner was ultimately appointed. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that the applications are being invited for the leased unit of BSIDC. The lessee BSIDC wanted the person to be appointed to serve in the leased unit. Appointment accordingly was granted upon selecting the petitioner which specifically recorded that the appointment is of temporary nature and may be terminated without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner served in the said unit of BSIDC and was paid his remuneration upto September, 1988. He was not paid his remuneration from October, 1988. According to the Respondent -BSIDC, the lease was surrendered in October, 1988. Despite surrender of the lease, the services of the petitioner had not been terminated. At this juncture it must be kept in mind that the appointment letter was issued by the Managing Committee of the said leased unit. The lessee being admittedly BSIDC, the Managing Committee must be deemed to have been appointed by BSIDC and accordingly it was under the direct control and supervision of BSIDC.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the Respondent -BSIDC points out that the Managing Committee was appointed by the State Government, but having regard to the fact that BSIDC was the lessee, the persons to be appointed as the Members of the Managing Committee may have been selected by the State Government but, in law, the jural relationship between the Managing Committee and BSIDC would be that the Managing Committee is subservient to BSIDC as Manager to the Principal. In those circumstances, there cannot be any dispute that the appointment as was given to the petitioner was given by BSIDC.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner reached the age of superannuation while working at the Offices of BSIDC and had been paid certain advances, as mentioned above, as well as certain salaries after 1992 by BSIDC. Inasmuch as full salary to which the petitioner was entitled to was not paid to the petitioner by BSIDC for the period, as mentioned above, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition which has been dismissed.