Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The aforesaid termination is challenged averring the same to be in contravention of Articles 21, 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as being in violation of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act), as being arbitrary and in contravention of the principles of natural justice.

4. Though the appointment of the petitioner as Managing Director as well as the letter dated 10 th March, 2006 was with/by M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. but the said company was not impleaded as a party/respondent in the writ petition as field in October, 2006. Rather, pleadings in the writ petition were as if the appointment of the petitioner as Managing Director was with respondent no.2 M/s Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. The National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) was impleaded as the respondent no.3 in the writ petition.

15. The first other question which arises is whether non-impleadment at the time of institution of the writ petition of M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. is fatal to the writ petition. In my opinion, no. The petitioner even at the time of filing of the writ petition was lying paralyzed. The writ petition on his behalf has been filed by his wife and who could not be expected to be in the full know of the affairs. It is otherwise not disputed that both respondent no.2 M/s Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. as well as M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. are the subsidiaries of the respondent no.3 NDDB. The mistake in not impleading M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. at the time of institution of writ petition can thus be not fatal. Moreover, the application for impleadment was allowed and which order was recalled only owing to the M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. having since merged in the respondent no.2 M/s Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd.

20. The matter thus has to be decided in the light of the law as aforesaid laid down. The counsel for the respondent no.2 M/s Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. informs that both M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. and M/s Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. are the subsidiaries of respondent no.3 NDDB. Undoubtedly, respondent no.3 NDDB has been established by or under the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) Act, 1987. It is however contended that M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. and M/s Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. however were not established under the said Act and are incorporated companies and merely because their entire shareholding was/is held by the respondent no.3 NDDB would not make them a corporation established under the NDDB Act.

21. A perusal of the NDDB Act however shows that Section 43 thereof empowers the NDDB to, for implementation of any of its objectives and subject to the previous approval of the Central Government form one or more companies either by itself or in conjunction with any of the subsidiary or with any other undertaking. No arguments by either counsels on the said aspect, were addressed. However, in view of the admission, of both M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. as well as M/s Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. being the subsidiaries of respondent no.3 NDDB, I have no doubt that they have been formed in exercise of powers under Section 43 of the NDDB Act. That being the position, they would certainly be a corporation established by or under the NDDB Act and hence an establishment within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and the provisions of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, would thus apply to M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. as well as the M/s Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd.