http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4534 of 2004

PETITIONER: M.D., BHADRA SHAHAKARI S.K. NIYAMITA        

RESPONDENT: PRESIDENT, CHITRADURGA MAZDOOR SANGH&ORS   

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/10/2006

BENCH: Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT: J U  D G M E N T With  C.A.NO.1223/2006 C.A.NO.1844/2006

Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4534/2004          This appeal was filed by the Managing Director, Bhadra Shahakari  S.K.Niyamita against the President, Chitradurga Mazdoor Sangh & Ors.  against the judgment dt.25.02.2003 passed by the High Court in  W.P.No.13524/1999. The Writ Petition was preferred by Chitradurga  District Mazdoor Sangh calling in question the inaction of the Management  in implementing the settlement produced as Annexure-A dt.14.05.1998 and  for a consequent direction to the Management to implement the  aforementioned settlement.  The High Court in para 40 of its judgment  observed as follows :-

       "In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the  writ petition with costs quantified at Rs.3000/- payable by the  first Respondent to the Petitioner’s counsel within two weeks.  A  writ of mandamus shall issue to the management of the first  Respondent sugar factory to implement the settlement  Annexure-A dated 14.05.1998 and continue 51 workmen already  reinstated into service and pay 40% of backwages, if not already  paid, within a period of one month from today."

       Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant-Management has  preferred the above Civil Appeal.           Mr.Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant submitted that the appellant being a co-operative sugar factory  registered under the Co-operative Societies Act with a view to earn profit  for the members of its society is purely a non-governmental organisation  and will not fall within the definition of ’State’ under Article 12 of the  Constitution of India and, therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the  respondent-Union was not maintainable.  In support of his contention, the  learned senior counsel placed strong reliance on the Judgments in General  Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. vs. Satrughan  Nishad & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 639; Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas &  Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 733; Gayatri De vs. Mousumi Cooperative Housing  Society Ltd.& Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 90; Shrikant vs. Vasantrao & Ors., (2006)  2 SCC 682 and Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs.Indian Institute of Chemical  Biology & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 111.  We have perused the above Judgments.   In our opinion, the Writ Petition filed by the respondent-Union against the  co-operative sugar factory is not maintainable.  We, therefore answer the  said issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition in favour of the appellant- Management.     When the matter came up for hearing on the last  occasion, considering the long pendency of the matter before this Court  and also before the High Court and considering the plight of the workers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

employed in the appellant-factory, we called for information as to whether  it would be possible for the appellant to pay back wages to the  respondent-workmen and the extent thereof.  Pursuant to our direction,  Dr.Iftiqhar, the Managing Director of the appellant placed before us, at the  time of hearing, an affidavit duly signed on 26.07.2006.  The same is taken  on record.  We have perused the said affidavit.  The appellant also, at the  time of hearing, furnished information about the financial commitment  required to pay back wages to the respondents in the Civil Appeal.  The  learned senior counsel has submitted that in view of the financial situation  of the appellant being in the red, it is not possible for the appellant to  sustain additional financial burden in the nature of back wages to the 51  workmen represented by the respondent-Union. He has also further  submitted that it will not be able to make a financial commitment at this  stage, especially when the accumulated loss of the factory is Rs.4252.85  lacs as on 31.03.2006 and that the payment of back wages to the 51  workmen represented by the respondent-Union at this stage may cause  labour unrest, especially since the appellant sugar factory has not been  able to pay even monthly wages to its workmen and they have initiated  litigations and Contempt Petitions before various courts.  As already  noticed, the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition ordered  payment of 40% back wages to the workmen by the Management.   Considering the critical financial situation of the appellant sugar factory,  we feel that a direction for payment of 10% back wages  which comes to  Rs.9.52 lacs if now ordered would meet the ends of justice.   Mr.G.V.Chandrashekhar, learned counsel for the respondents has agreed  to receive 10% back wages amounting to Rs.9.52 lacs which represent the  back wages for the period 1992 to 1999.  We, therefore, in the interest of  justice and in the interest of workers, direct the appellant-Management to  pay a sum of Rs.9.52 lacs by way of back wages for the period 1992 to  1999.  The said amount shall be distributed among 51 workmen as per  their dues.  The amount shall be distributed within a period of two months  by the Management itself.           We also placed on record the statement made by Mr.G.  V.Chandrashekhar, learned counsel for the respondent that the workers  have already been reinstated in service on 27.09.1999 by virtue of an order  passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.  Since the  reinstatement has been ordered by the High Court, the workers will not be  disturbed except in accordance with law.  The appeal stands  disposed of  accordingly.  No costs. C.A.No.1223 of 2006          The above appeal was filed by the Chitradurga Mazdoor Sangh  against the order passed by the High Court dt.26.05.2005 in  C.C.C.No.1437/2004 dismissing the Contempt Petition filed by the  appellant.  In view of the Judgment now passed by us in  C.A.No.4534/2004, this appeal has become infructuous and the same is  dismissed.