HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.959 OF 2014 DATED: 19.6.2014 Between:
Kesoram Cements Contract workers Union, represented through its General Secretary, Post Basanthnagar, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District.
… Appellant And Commissioner of Labour, A.P., Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.959 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the Hon’ble trial Judge, dated 10.03.2014, by which His Lordship dismissed the writ petition holding that the cause of action wholly relates to 4th respondent, against whom grievance has been made, and it is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
2. The 4th respondent is described as ‘Kesoram Cements’. In the cause title, status of 4th respondent has not been mentioned at all in order to hold that it is sui juris. All that we can say it is not an individual at least. It could be a sole proprietorship firm. In that case, proprietor or proprietress thereof sui juris. If it is a partnership firm and it is unregistered, all the partners thereof would be sui juris, in case of it being registered, firm itself would be sui juris. If it is a body corporate formed and incorporated under relevant Statute and if that body corporate is made sui juris under the Act, the body would be sui juris. In case of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, then the company would be sui juris.
3. Therefore, at the first instance we hold that 4th respondent is not sui juris and so no lis can be brought nor maintained against it under law. On that ground alone the writ petition and this appeal do not lie against it.
3. Before we proceed to examine the judgment of the Hon’ble trial Judge, we narrate the facts shortly as has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant and so also found to be in the writ petition, which is relevant for our purpose, as follows:
4. The appellant – Union is represented through its General Secretary, who claims to have been elected as General Secretary of 6th respondent – Union also. However, despite being elected he could not assume office of 6th respondent in view of an interim order dated 27.2.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5091 of 2012, which was subsequently withdrawn. His grievance is that in view of continuation of the interim order, he could not enjoy as office bearer. So, he made a representation to 4th respondent for extension of the period. His representation was not considered at all.
5. When we look into the writ petition, we find that the grievance is against the 4th respondent and 4th respondent alone for non- consideration of his representation. But, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the grievance of his client is in relation to continuation of the interim order till a final order is passed in said writ petition in his favour. In the above background, second writ petition was filed.
6. The Hon’ble trial Judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, has correctly held that 4th respondent is not a State. It is settled position of law in order to hold that a party to be State, there must be some instrumentality of the State or the concerned person must be doing a monopoly duty cast upon him under a Statute. Neither of these facts has been mentioned in the writ petition. In the absence of those materials, no Court of law can hold it is State or other authority to entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble trial Judge found on fact that 4th respondent is not a State. We accept this finding.
7. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Appeal as it is absolutely devoid of any merit.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 19.6.2014 Bnr/cbs