Surender Prasad And Ors V. Union Of India And Ors

WPC/3372/2017

AI Insights

The case involves a group of petitioners, employees of Tata Motors Limited, who sought a writ of mandamus to compel Tata Motors Limited to grant them benefits under the Defined Benefit Scheme as per the Principal Trust Deed approved by the Income Tax Commissioner. The petition was filed against multiple respondents including the Union of India and various Income Tax authorities, but the main relief was sought against Tata Motors Limited. The court examined whether Tata Motors Limited could be considered a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, which would make it amenable to writ jurisdiction. After analyzing precedents and the nature of control and financing of Tata Motors Limited, the court concluded that it is not a 'State' and thus not subject to the writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724381 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ajay Hasia And Others- versus- Khalid Mujib Sehravardi Ant Others, R.D.Shetty- versus- International Airport Authority of India, ZEE Telefilms Ltd And Another -Versus- Union of India And Others, Board of Control for Cricket- versus- Cricket Association of Bihar And Others
• Laws Referred To: Article 12 of the Constitution of India, Indian Companies Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMRITA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMIR LAL
• Keywords: Mandamus; Public Limited Company; Defined Benefit Scheme; State under Article 12; Moral duty
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3372 of 2017 1. Surender Prasad 2. Shri S.K.Srivastava 3. Shri T. Chitambaram 4. Shri H. Mukhopadhyay 5. Shri M.N.Trivedi..…................ Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Union of India 2. The Income Tax Commissioner, Mumbai 3. CPIO (Additional Commissioner of Income Tax), Mumbai 4. The Chief Income Tax Commissioner, Jharkhand 5. Tata Motor Limited through its Chairman Corporate Finance, Maharashtra………… Respondent(s) …… Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen Through:-Video Conferencing …… For the Petitioner : Mr. Samir Kumar Lal, Advocate For the Income Tax : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate …… 10/29.06.2021 The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. In this writ petition, the prayer of the petitioners is to grant them benefits of DB Scheme, as per clause -11 of the Principal Trust Deed approved by the Income Tax Commissioner. Petitioners further pray that the said benefit has to be given by Respondent no. 5 Tata Motors Limited. Thus, from the prayer it is clear that the mandamus has been sought for against Respondent No. 5, which is Tata Motors Limited. The petitioners are admittedly the employees of Tata Motors Limited and are claiming the benefit of Defined Benefit Scheme (DB Scheme) in terms of Principal Trust Deed dated 10.08.1963 from M/S Tata Motors Limited. Annexure- 3 & 5 is the representations/legal notices sent by the petitioners to Tata Motors Limited claiming the said benefits. The primarily question, which arises, is as to whether the present -2- writ petition is maintainable against Tata Motors Limited. Though Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the Income Tax Authorities, but the main relief and the direction is sought against Tata Motors Limited (Respondent No. 5). In the writ petition itself in Para-6 the petitioners have stated that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In the said paragraph, they have not stated as to whether Respondent No. 5, against whom the main relief is sought for, is State under Article 12 of the Constitution so that a writ petition can be maintainable against it. In Para-7, it has been mentioned that Respondent No. 5 is a public limited company under the Indian Companies Act. Nowhere in the entire petition it has been mentioned that Respondent No. 5 is State. On query, counsel for the petitioners submits that Respondent No. 5 is a public limited company and manufactures motor vehicles. On query, he also submits that there is no government control over the said Company nor the company is financed by the Government or floated by the Government. He submits that since the Company has a moral duty to look after the welfare of its employees thus, in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ajay Hasia And Others- versus- Khalid Mujib Sehravardi Ant Others , reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722” this writ petition is maintainable against a non-State entity also if that entity is duty bound to welfare of its employees. He submits that the Company, which is entitled to look after the welfare of its employees it said to have been performing public duty thus a writ is maintainable. This Court is absolutely not in agreement with the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, respondent no. 5 is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is a public limited company. The Company manufactures automobiles. There is no deep and pervasive State control in the affairs of the company nor the said respondent is wholly and substantially financed -3- by the State. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ajay Hasia (Supra), after relying upon the case of “R.D.Shetty- versus- International Airport Authority of India, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489” has laid down the conditions, which must be fulfilled by an Authority to become State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also in the case of “ZEE Telefilms Ltd And Another -Versus- Union of India And Others, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649” and in the case of “Board of Control for Cricket- versus- Cricket Association of Bihar And Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 535, has, in details, dealt with this issue. Applying those judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the principle laid down, since there is no control of the Government over Respondent No. 5 Tata Motors Limited nor there is any funding made by the Government, this Court is of the opinion that no mandamus can be issued against respondent no. 5 as Respondent no. 5 is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. As mentioned earlier, the petitioners’ prayer is for a direction upon respondent no. 5. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 has been made a party to this application ornamentally without seeking any relief from them. This Court feels that to make this application maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, they have been made a party. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against respondent no. 5 is thus not maintainable. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. (Ananda Sen, J) Mukund/-cp. 2 "