Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, learned Counsel for petitioners, Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.
Facts of the present case are that the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India has issued a scheme in the name and style of "Total Sanitation Campaign" for various States including state of Uttar Pradesh for improving the quality of life in rural area.
Under the said scheme, it has been provided that the same shall be scrutinized by the State Government and thereafter it shall be transmitted to the Government of India.
The aims and objects of the said scheme are as under:-
"a) Bring about an improvement in the general quality of life in the rural areas.
b) Accelerate sanitation coverage in rural areas to access to toilets to all by 2017.
c) Motivate communities and Panchayati Raj Institutions promoting sustainable sanitation facilities through awareness creation and health education.
d) In rural areas, cover schools and Anganwadis by March, 2013, with sanitation facilities and promote hygiene education and sanitary habits among students.
e) Encourage cost effective and appropriate technologies for ecologically safe and sustainable sanitation.
f) Develop community managed environmental sanitation systems focusing on solid & liquid waste management."
In order to implement the said scheme various policies and guidelines have been issued by appropriate authorities, amongst them, one of the policy has been issued on 24.08.2010 by Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Drinking Water & Sanitation to the Principal Secretary/Secretary, In-charge of Rural Water Supply & Sanitation (All States), wherein it has been provided as under:-
"(B) District level : In the case of DWSM staffing, the minimum experience required has been increased form the present 2 years to 5 yeas. They may be paid 'consolidated monthly remuneration' in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. The DWSM manpower may be selected by a Committee with the following members or with any changes among State level representatives approved by the State Government.:
i) Director, WSSO Chairman
ii) Additional/Joint/ Deputy Secretary to the Department Member
iii) An expert to the nominated by the State Government.
Member
iv) 2 Expert/Officer to be nominated by GoI.
Member The State shall be free to recruit functionaries for the DWSM on an outsourcing basis."
Further, in this regard, policy paper for New Rural Sanitation Initiatives in 12th Plan (2012-2017) has been issued by Government of India, Ministry of Drinking Water & Sanitation (CRSP Division) to the Principal Secretary/Secretary, In-charge of Rural Water Supply & sanitation (All States and UTI) to give their suggestions for implementation of the scheme.
Accordingly, as per the policy decision dated 24.08.2011 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Drinking Water & Sanitation (CRSP Division), the State Government appointed M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. as Outsourcing Agency to appoint the persons on the post of District Project Coordinator, the relevant provisions/clause is as under:-
"The State shall be free to recruit functionaries for the DWSM on an outsourcing basis."
Thereafter, an agreement has been entered into between the State Project Coordinator (CCDU Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P. and M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. for making appointments on the post of District Project Coordinator under the scheme (a copy of the said agreement is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition), the clause 5, 11 and 12 of the said agreement, necessary for disposal of the controversy involved in the present case, are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Para No. 5 - यह कि प्रथम पक्ष उन्ही मैन पॉवर को उपलब्ध कराएगा, जिनकी शैक्षिक योग्यता आयु एवं तकनिकी योग्यता पदानुसार सी० सी० डी० यू० के मानक के अनुसार मांग की जाएगी | मैन पॉवर के चयन हेतु प्रथम पक्ष द्वारा द्वितीय पक्ष को कोई शुल्क देय नहीं होगी | उपलब्ध कराये गए मैन पॉवर की दक्षता एवं विषय ज्ञान का परिक्षण प्रथम पक्ष के स्तर से किया जायेगा | Para No. 11 - यह कि उक्त अनुबंद की अवधि being 31 March, 2012 तक के लिए होगी तथा संतोषजनक कार्य की अवस्था में अनुबंध को दोनों पक्ष की लिखित सहमती से बढाया जा सकता है | Para No. 12 - द्वितीय पक्ष द्वारा कार्य पर भेजे गए नैनपवार की दिए जाने वाले पारिश्रमिक एवं उनके ई० पी० एफ० व ई० एस० आई० जमा कराने की जिम्मेदारी एजेंसी अर्थार्त द्वितीय पक्ष को है | द्वितीय पक्ष इन देनदारियों का नियमित भुगतान करते हुआ पुष्टि हेतु प्रमाण पत्र प्रथम पक्ष को प्रस्तुत करेगा |"
Thus, in view of the abovesaid facts, M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under Companies Act has been appointed as an "outsourcing agency" to appoint the persons on the post of District Project Coordinator in each district of State of Uttar Pradesh.
On 18.05.2011, the said company issued an advertizement (Anneuxre No. 9) calling application from eligible candidates for appointment on the post in question i.e. District Project Coordinator and in the said advertizement it has been mentioned that they should contact M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd, 1st Floor, B-Block, Rohit Bhawan, Sapru Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow in this regard.
In pursuance to the said fact, present petitioners have submitted their candidature to M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. for appointment on the post in question i.e. District Project Coordinator for different districts of State of Uttar Pradesh, Thereafter, letter of appointments have been issued by the M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd, a copy of one of such appointment letters is annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, relevant portion of the same is being reproduced as under:-
"With reference to your application we are pleased to offer you employment on the post of Distrcit Porject Coordinator (Balrampur) at Panchayti Raj Vibhag, on a monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 25000/-(Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) (Fixed amount) for a period of one year only."
The present petitioners accepted the said offer of appointment, on the conditions mentioned therein, accordingly, they were posted in different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh on the post of District Project Coordinator on consolidated salary of Rs. 25000/- for a period of one year.
On 23.02.2012 , O.P. No. 3 issued a letter (Annexure No. 1) to all the District Panchayati Raj Officers throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh inter alia stating therein that the term of the contract with M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. has come to end on 31.03.2012, thereafter, in pursuance to the same, District Panchayati Raj Officer issued an order dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure No. 2) stating that appointment on the post of District Project Coordinator by M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd by order dated 18.07.2011 on consolidated salary of Rs. 25000/- is being terminated w.e.f. 31.03.2012 as the agreement entered between M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd is to expire on 31.03.2012.
Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite parties has raised a preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of the said objection, he submits that in the matter in question on 15.04.2011 an agreement has been entered into between the State Project Coordinator (CCDU Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P.) and M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. As per the terms of the said agreement M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. was authorized to engage the man power to work as District Project Coordinators at different places under "Total Sanitation Campaign" scheme which is launched by Government of India, controlled and managed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Accordingly, he further submits that the present petitioners are appointed by the M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. which is neither the "State" nor the "instrumentality" of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, so the present writ petition filed by the petitioners for the relief as claimed therein is not maintainable because if the petitioners who are the employees of the M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. have any grievance in the matter in question, the same is against their employer i.e. M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. (which is a private company, even not impleaded in the present writ petition). Thus, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, liable to be dismissed.
In order to strengthen his argument, Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that in identical circumstances, this Court has passed a judgment and order dated 02.04.2012 in Writ Petition No. 1587 (SS) of 2012 (Anoop Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others), thereby dismissing the writ petition, holding therein that the persons who are appointed on the post of Computer Operator in the State Resources Centre of the Kshetra Panchayats in pursuance to the agreement entered between the said company and State Government, the employees of M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. to work on the post of computer operators in the scheme of the Central Government known as Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) which is to be implemented and controlled by the State Government at various centres at Kshetra Panchayats. Accordingly, they are the employees of M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd., so the writ petition filed by them for redressal of their grievances is not maintainable under Article 226 the Constitution of India.
Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for petitioners, in rebuttal, submits that District Water and Sanitation Mission (D.W.S.M.), of which the Total Sanitation Campaign is a component, was launched by the Government of India with 80% funding from the Government of India and 20% funding from the State Government. M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. was only a source of recruitment and appointment whereas the actual recruiting and appointing authority, as per directions of the Central Government, was the State Government. The words, "the State shall be free to recruit functionaries for D.W.S.M." occurring in the aforesaid order of the Government of India are of much significance and they lead to the only and only conclusion that it was the State Government which was the Recruiting Authority. The mere fact that the appointment orders were issued after making selection by the Outsourcing Agency cannot change the nature and character of the actual appointment and engagement of the petitioners.
Accordingly, the submission which is made on the point in issue by Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner are summarized as under:-
The petitioners have been engaged under a Project launched by the government of India with 80% funding from the Government of India and 20% funding from the State Government.
The petitioners were deputed and posted under the District Sanitation Committee of which the District Magistrate of the concerned district is the Chairman, the Chief Development Officer of the concerned District is the Vice Chairman and District Panchayat Raj Officer of the concerned district is the Member Secretary apart from other government Order dated 28.09.2004.
The petitioners have been functioning under the direct control and supervision of the aforesaid District Level Committee and have been performing the public functions under Government and not for the Outsourcing Agency, i.e. M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. The engagement of Outsourcing Agency, as per directive of the Government of India, could be only for the purpose of providing hands and it does not mean that the Outsourcing Agency was the petitioners' employer.
The salary has been paid to the petitioners form the funds allocated to the State Government to the tune of 80% by the Central Government and the contribution of the State Government to the extent of 20%.
The salary has been paid to some of the petitioners directly through the account payee cheque issued by the District Level Committee and some of the petitioners have been paid salary through the account payee cheque issued through the Outsourcing Agency.
After engagement of the petitioners and their joining, they have all along been working under the direct control and supervision of the District Sanitation Committee/District Magistrate/Chief Development Officer/District Pandhyati Raj Officer of the concerned district.
After being available for working under the Government as District Project Coordinators, the Outsourcing Agency did not have any control and supervision over the working of the petitioners.
The petitioners have been regularly signing the attendance register maintained at the District headquarters by the Governmental Department. As and when anything was to be done , the petitioners have all along been responsible for any act of commission or omission on their part in regard to their functions as District Project Coordinators to the District Magistrate/Chief Development Officer/District Panchayat Raj Officer of the concerned district and they have never been answerable for such acts of commission or omission on their part to the Outsourcing Agency.
The District Sanitation Committee,the District Magistrate, the Chief Development Officer and the District Panchayat Raj Officer of the concerned districts use to constantly supervise and allot the work to the petitioners and such a supervision of their work and allotment of work has never been in the hands of the Outsourcing Agency.
The Outsourcing Agency, namely, M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. was not a contractor for doing or completing any work under the Project.
Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners further submits that judgment and order dated 02.04.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1587 (SS) of 2012 on which reliance has been placed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is not applicable in the present case because in the said matter the appointment has been done on the post of Computer Operator under Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) scheme which is entirely different in comparison to the scheme in the present case and further in the said matter the post of Computer Operators were abolished, hence no benefit can be derived by the respondents in the present case on the basis of the said judgment.
Thus, in precise, Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners in regard to maintainability of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (in view of the abovesaid facts) submits that in the present case, as per the scheme of the Government of India, the Government of Uttar Pradesh has appointed, M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. as an "outsourcing agency" for appointment of the petitioners on the post of District Project Coordinator, thus, the petitioners are appointed by M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. who issued appointment orders for a period of one year on fixed term, although appointment orders have been made by M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. but the said act has been made on behalf of the State Government, coupled with the fact that petitioners after being appointed are working and discharging their duties as assigned to them by the State Government/Panchayat Raj Officer in the various districts under the scheme, the said work done by them is for the State, as such for all practical purposes, the State of U.P. is their employer, so the present writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In support of his argument, Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the definition of "employee" and "employer" as given in Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition page 564 and 565 as under:-
"Employee:- A person who woks in the service of another person (the employer0 under an express or implied contract of hire, under which the employer has the right to control the details of work performance Employer:- A person who controls and directs a worker under an express or implied contract of hire and who pays the worker's salary or wages."
And the definition of an "employee" and "employer" as given in the New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language 1990 Deluxe Edition at page No. 309 as under:-
"Employee:- Someone paid to work especially on regular rather than a casual basis.
Employer:- Someone who pays another or others to work for him a user."
Further placed reliance on the interpretation of the word "employer" as made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Std. Vs. Ram Ujagar and others reported in 1964 (2) SCR 838 and also in the following judgments:-
1.Secretary, H.S.E.B. Vs. Suresh and others, (1999) 3 SCC 601.
2.General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Silchar Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission Contractual Workers Union, (2008) 12 SCC 275.
3.Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 6 SCC 528.
Accordingly, Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners submits that as the petitioners were working and discharging their duties for State of U.P./Panchayat Raj, so keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as settled proposition of law that the corporate veil can in certain situations be pierced or lifted, this Court shall entertain present writ petition filed by the petitioners for redessal of their grievances and adjudicate the same on merit, in this regard he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1.
I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
In view of the abovesaid facts, the position which emerges out is to the effect that under the scheme of the Government of India know as "Total Sanitation Campaign", in order to implement the same in the State of Uttar Pradesh, M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act has been authorised as an "outsourcing agency". Subsequently, the said company (M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd.) had issued an advertizement for appointment on the post of District Project Coordinators and in pursuance to the same, present petitioners submitted their candidature to M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. and on being selected they were given letter of appointment subject to the condition mentioned therein, by M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. on the post of District Project Coordinators on a consolidated amount/honorarium (fixed amount for one year) which they have accepted with open eyes accordingly, they were posted on the post in question in different districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Thus, it is clearly established that the petitioners are appointed on the post of "District Project Coordinator" by M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. which is a private company although they are working as per the terms of the scheme, the said company does not come within the definition of State as given in Article 12 of the Constituted of India, as per the judicial pronouncement given by Hon'ble the Apex Court which governs the field.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia and others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others 1981 (1) SCC 722, has laid down the following guideline for a body to be a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the same are as follows:--
(1) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government."
(2) "Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character."
(3) "It may also be a relevant factor... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected."
(4) "Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrum-entality."
(5) "If the functions of the corporation of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government."
(6) "Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government."
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas case Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, (2002) 5 SCC 111 and Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2005 (4) SCC 649 after taking into consideration the law as laid by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) has laid down the following guidelines in order to finding out that when a body can be state to fall within the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the same are summarized as under:-
(1) Principles laid down in Ajay Hasia, (1981) 1 SCC 722 are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must exhypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12.
(2) The question in each case will have to be considered on the basis of facts available as to whether in the lgiht of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally, administratively dominated, by or under the control of the Government.
(3) Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive.
(4) Mere regulatory control whether under statue or otherwise would not serve to make a body a part of the State.
In the case of Sindhi Educational Society and others Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and others reported in JT 2010 (7) SC 98, Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:-
The interpretation of the word `State' really does not require any deliberation as this aspect is no more res-integra and has been settled by the law stated in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722], where this Court spelt out the test that would be applicable in determining whether a Corporation or a Government Company or a private body is an instrumentality or agency of the State. Primarily, there are different type of controls, which can be exercised by the State over any other authority, society, organization or private body to bring it within the ambit of the expression `State' or `other authority' appearing in Article 12 of the Constitution. These are financial control, managerial and administrative control and functional control. To put it differently, what is the administrative control that the Government exercises upon such a body, whether functions of that body are governmental functions or closely related thereto, quantum of State control, volume of financial assistances, character and structure of the body and cumulative effect of these factors etc. This has been followed consistently in the case of Zoroastrian Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar, Coop. Societies (Urban) [(2005) 5 SCC 632] and in a very recent judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam Rai [(2009) 5 SCC 577], wherein this Court held that Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan (Sansthan) is a State because these criteria were satisfied and even the State could take over the functions of the Sansthan. Unless all these three aspects are established or they are stated to be satisfied, it will not be permissible to term that society, organization or body as a 'State'.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts as the M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. does not comes within the ambit and scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as well as clause 11 & 12 of the agreement entered into between State of U.P./Panchayat Raj Department and M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. for appointment on the post in question the salary is to be paid to the petitioners through M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd., who is the appointing authority of the petitioners, even if they are working and discharging their duties on behalf of the State of U.P./Panchayat Raj controlled and managed by the State authority, it can be safely held that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner for redressal of their grievances is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Needless to mention herein that a scheme was launched by the Central Government known as Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) scheme was also managed and controlled by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and as per the said scheme an agreement has been entered between the appropriate authority of the State Government for appointment on the post of Computer Operator in Chhetriya Panchayat with M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. which is a private company and in pursuance to the said agreement M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. had appointed the persons on the post of Computer Operator to discharge their duties and do the work on behalf of the State Government/Kshetriya Panchayat and while deciding the same they are controlled and supervised by the authorities of Kshetriya Panchayat after expiry of the term of the agreement between the State authorities and M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. on 31.03.2012, the services of the said persons working on the post of computer operators came to end on 31.03.2010.
In view of the said facts, they approahced this Court with a grievance that the scheme in question is still in operation, even if term of the M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. who had appointed them has come to end but their services should not be terminated as after their appointment by the said company they are working and discharging their duties on behalf of Kshetriya Panchayat under the control of theauthority of the State by filing Writ Petition No. 1587 (SS) of 2012 (Anoop Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others). After hearing the learned counsel for parties therein the said writ petition was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 02.04.2012, operative portion of the same quoted as under:-
"It appears that the Central Government had financed a Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) scheme which was launched in certain districts in the State of U.P. For proper implementation of the said scheme by the Government Order dated 5.4.2011 resource centers were established at Khetra Panchayats and in the said resource centers, Computer Operators were to be engaged through the outsourcing agency. It was by the Government Order dated 29.6.2011, the opposite party no. 4 was short-listed as the outsourcing agency to provide Computer Operators on honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- per month. A contract was entered into by the State Government with the opposite party no. 4 in this regard. It was thereafter that the opposite party no. 4 had issued appointment letters to the petitioners for working as Computer Operators at the said resource centers of Khestra Panchayats. However, the contract entered into between the State Government and the opposite party no. 4 was for a period upto 31.3.2012 and it has expired.
The petitioners were employees of opposite party no. 4 whose contract has come to an end on 31.3.2012, as such the petitioners have no right to continue after 31.3.2012, on the post they were appointed. In case they have any grievance with respect to non-payment of arrears of honorarium or their remaining period of service which has not expired, the same is against the opposite party no. 4. Admittedly, the opposite party no. 4, is a private limited company. The writ petition against a private limited company for redressal of grievance of the petitioners, in the present facts and circumstances, is not maintainable.
In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed."
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the abovesaid judgment given by this Court is fully applicable in the present case as well, because in the present case under the scheme known as "Total Sanitation Scheme" which is financed by Central Government (80%) and thereafter the same is being implemented by the State of U.P. as per the policy laid down in that regard, the State Government of U.P. has appointed M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. as Outsourcing Agency and the said agency has appointed the petitioners on the post of Computer Operator as state hereinabove, so the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the Said judgment. (Anoop Kumar Shukla).
So far as the judgment cited by the petitioner such as Secretary, H.S.E.B. Vs. Suresh and others, (1999) 3 SCC 601., General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Silchar Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission Contractual Workers Union, (2008) 12 SCC 275, Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 6 SCC 528. (supra), the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the said case the matters had arisen out of Industrial Disputes Act and after taking into consideration the provisions as provided under Labour Law as well as Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1975, Hon'ble the Apex Court has laid down the proposition in the said judgments in respect to relation of employer and employee, however, in the present case the undisputed position is to the effect that M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. has appointed the petitioners on the post of District Project Coordinator, so the petitioners cannot claim any benefit from the said judgment which are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
So far as the reliance has placed on behalf of petitioner on the judgment given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1 that corporate veil can in certain situations be pierced or lifted is concerned, the said case is not applicable in the facts of the present case since in the said case, the salary/wages to the persons who are working in different companies of the State of Bihar have not been paid, so taking into consideration the said facts, and the provisions as provided under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 etc. as well as the facts that Corporation which are involved in the said matter are the instrumentality of the State, it was held that they came within the ambit and scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, where as in the present case as stated hereinabove and by learned Single Judge of this Court has already held that the persons who are employed under the same scheme by M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd. as in the present case the petitioners are employees of a private company, so the writ petition against the private company for redressal of their grievances is not maintainable, and the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from abovesaid judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, as the the petitioners are the employees of the private company (M/s Vibgyor Info Pvt. Ltd.) So, the writ petition against a private company for redressal of grievances of the petitioners, in view of the facts stated hereinabove is not maintainable, thus, the same is dismissed accordingly.
However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioners, if so desire they may approach appropriate forum, as provided under law for redressal of their grievances.
Order Date :- 25.05.2012 Ravi/