Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. We shall next examine some consequences which would follow if such Corporations were held to be Government departments in order to ascertain how far these afford a confirmation of the view we have just now expressed.

34. If a public Corporation created under a statute be held to be a Government department or at least a servant or agent of the Government, it would logically follow that persons employed by these Corporations would be persons holding posts in a public service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of the State, dependant upon whether the Corporation was created by the Union or the State Legislature. If so the Common law rule that service under the Crown was held at pleasure embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional safeguards which the article provides for Government servants, would be attracted to determine the conditions of service under such bodies. This question has come up before the Courts on several occasions and has been uniformly answered against the applicability of Article 311 to such employees. These decisions dealt with two types of cases ; (1) those in relation to Municipal employees or employees of local authorities as defined by the General Clauses Act including in this category employees of State Regional authorities such as Port Trusts, (2) Public Corporations created for carrying on state undertakings. The decisions, however, drew no essential distinction as regards the principles applicable as between the two categories. Falling under the first head was Mangal Sain v. State of Punjab , which was concerned with an executive officer of a Committee. The learned Judges of the Punjab High Court held that the service of such officer was not governed by Article 311. They negatived this contention urged on behalf of the officer by pointing out that Chapter XIV of the Constitution in which Article 311 is found opens with Article 308 in which ' State ' is defined as meaning a State specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule. This definition they contrasted with Article 12 where the expression ' State ' was for the purpose of Part III defined so as to include the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. From this they drew the inference that an employee of a local authority was not an employee of the State within Article 308 and therefore not within Article 311. The learned Judges also referred to Article 321 under which Parliament or the Legislature of a State may provide for vesting in the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, additional functions in regard to services under any local authority or other body corporate, constituted by law or of any public institution. This was treated as a clear indication that a civil servant of the State or of the Union in Article 311, etc., was not the same as those in the service of a local authority or body corporate constituted by law or any public institution. Bibhuti Bhusan v. Damodar Valley Corporation A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 581, fell under the second head and related to an employee of the Damodar Valley Corporation. Bose, J., of the Calcutta High Court held that it was not necessary that the terms or conditions of service of the servants of the Corporation should conform to the requisites of Chapter XIV of the Constitution and that no notice to show cause need precede the termination of their services as required by Article 311(2). The learned Judge in repelling an argument that an employee of Corporation was a servant of the Union or the State Government said:

40. The learned Advocate-General pointed out that these decisions would not affect his main thesis and that they could be explained on the basis of the historical background of Article 311. In addition it might be urged that the expression "public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union and of any State" occurring in Article 309 ought to receive a limited construction so as to exclude service under "a local authority or other body corporate constituted by law" in the light of the provisions in Article 321. Besides it is obvious that though a person employed in the public service holds an office of profit, the converse that every person who holds an office of profit is a person falling within Article 311 does not follow. We are, therefore, not inclined to hold that notwithstanding the logic of it, the inapplicability of Article 311 by itself and without anything more takes a service outside Article 191(1)(a).