Gauhati High Court
Dhruba Brata Das vs North Eastern Industrial And Technical ... on 22 September, 2021
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010030992019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1070/2019
DHRUBA BRATA DAS
S/O- LT HEMENDRA KUMAR DAS, 41, RAJGARH LINK ROAD, (WARD
NO.20), ANIL NAGAR, GHY- 7
VERSUS
NORTH EASTERN INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY
ORGANISATION LTD AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN, MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE
ORGANISATION, BORA MARKET (3RD FLOOR), SREE NAGAR,
R.G.BARUAH ROAD, GHY, ASSAM, PIN- 781006
2:THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
NORTH EASTERN INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY
ORGANISATION LTD.
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
BORA MARKET (3RD FLOOR)
SREE NAGAR
R.G.BARUAH ROAD
GHY
ASSAM
PIN- 781006
3:SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
MSME DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
C-1
G-BLOCK
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX
BANDRA (E)
MUMBAI- 40005
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G UZIR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY (R1,R2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 22.09.2021 Heard Mr. G. Uzir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present writ petition. By referring to the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition, it is submitted that the respondent no.1 company, i.e. North Eastern Industrial and Technical Consultancy Org. Ltd. (NITCO for short) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of O. Amarjeet Singh vs. The Managing Director, NITCO Ltd. & Ors., wherein this Court had specifically held that the respondent no.1 was not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that following the ratio laid down in the case of O. Amarjeet Singh (supra), this Court had also dismissed a claim similar to the present writ petition relating to non- payment of gratuity and other pensionary benefits, being the case of Jamini Sen Page No.# 3/4 Deka vs. The Union of India & Ors., WP(C) 6879/2016 decided on 14.08.2017.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to a brief profile of NITCO as downloaded from the internet and it is submitted that the said company was set up in the year 1973 with its head office at Guwahati by All India Financial Institutions, Nationalized Banks and State Development Agencies under the leadership of IDBI to cater to the consultancy needs of the north eastern region and that the respondent no.1 had now been brought under the administrative control of Small Industries Development Bank of India. It is also submitted that the respondent no.1 company is a Govt. company within the meaning of Section 619B of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. The combined reading of the provisions of Section 617, 619 and 619B only refers to the definition of Govt. Company and the provisions of Section 619B merely provides that the provisions of Section 619 to apply to certain companies as if it were a Govt. Company. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the respondent no.1 is a Govt. Company, but there is nothing on record to show that the objects of the respondent no.1 Company was for advancement of any State authority. The brief of profile of NITCO as referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner also reflects that the purpose of the respondent no.1 Company was to cater to the consultancy needs of the north eastern region. Paragraph 10, 14 and 19 of the case of O. Amarjeet Singh (supra) leaves no doubt that the Division Bench of this Court had held that the respondent no.1 Company was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
5. There is no material on record to show that the said Division Bench judgment in the case of O. Amarjeet Singh (supra) was not applicable on the facts of the present case or that the said judgment was per incurium. As already Page No.# 4/4 indicated above, the claim of gratuity and other pensionary benefits was dismissed by this Court by following the ratio laid down in the decision of the Division Bench in O. Amarjeet Singh (supra) and held the writ petition to be not maintainable.
6. This Court being bound by the ratio laid down in hereinbefore referred two cases, this writ petition is held to be not maintainable and the same is dismissed.
7. Before parting with the records, having noted that the petitioners are claiming non-payment of full salary and non-payment of pensionary and other benefits, the Court expects the admissible dues of the petitioner to be paid within a short and reasonable time and in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment of his dues within a short and reasonable time, he would be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority or Court for redressal of his grievance.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant