Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Since the decision vide AIR 1997 (SC) 1855 / (1997) 4 SCC 257, has been heavily relied on by both the parties, this Court here examines the decision relied on by the parties. Going through the decision vide (1997) 4 SCC 257, this Court finds, in paragraph nos.8 to 13 the Hon9ble apex Court came to observe as follows:-

<8. Therefore, the question whether PRL is an <industry= under the I.D. Act will have to be decided by applying the above principles; but, at the same time it has to be kept in mind that these principles were formulated as this Court found the definition of the word sovereign functions. One more aspect to be kept in mind is that the aforesaid principles are not exhaustive either as regards what can be said to be sovereign functions or as regards the other aspects dealt with by the court.

// 15 //

9. In this context, it is useful to refer to Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare [(1996) 2 SCC 293 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 500] wherein this Court, while rejecting the contention that as sovereignty vests in the people the concept of sovereign functions would include all welfare activities on the ground that taking of such a view would erode the ratio in Bangalore Water Supply case [(1978) 2 SCC 213 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 215] , observed that sovereign and non-

sovereign functions does not really exist 4 it would all depend on the nature of the power and manner of its exercise=. After referring to the three traditional sovereign functions namely legislative power, the administration of laws and the exercise of the judicial power and also the decision of the Gujarat High Court in J.J. Shrimali v. District Development Officer [(1989) 1 Guj LR 396] wherein famine and drought-relief works undertaken by the State Government were held not to be an functions, there may be some other functions also regarding which a view could be taken that the same too is a sovereign function.=

10. In Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph [(1996) 8 SCC 489 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1012] this Court had to consider whether the establishment of Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post at Vaikam is an sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic has to establish an egalitarian social order under rule of law. The welfare measures partake the character of sovereign functions and the traditional duty to maintain law and order is no longer the concept of the State. Directive Principles of State Policy enjoin on the State diverse duties under Part IV of the Constitution and the performance of the duties are constitutional functions. One of the duties of the State is to provide telecommunication service to the general public and an amenity, and so is an essential part of the sovereign functions of the State as a welfare State. It is not, therefore, an industry.= While taking this view this Court was also influenced by the fact that, the method of recruitment, the conditions of service, the scale of pay and the conduct rules regulating the service conditions of the Extra-Departmental Agents employed by the said establishment are governed by the statutory rules and regulations and that those employees are civil servants. Therefore, while // 16 // applying the traditional test, approved by this Court in Bangalore Water Supply case [(1978) 2 SCC 213 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 215] to determine what can be regarded as sovereign functions, the change in the concept of sovereign functions of a constitutional government has to be kept in mind. Relying upon these two in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare [(1996) 2 SCC 293 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 500] and Sub- Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph [(1996) 8 SCC 489 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1012] , it was contended by the learned Attorney General that the research work carried on by PRL should be regarded as a sovereign or governmental function.