N. Manoharan, Etc v. The Administrative Officer & Anr.

Atomic Energy Act, 1962 – s.3 – High Court inter alia held that Heavy Water Board (HWB) functions directly under the Ministry and the employees were Central Government servants, not merely employees of an autonomous industrial unit: Held: The Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, is the Department through which the Central Government discharges the functions, duties, and responsibilities assigned to it under the AE Act – s.3 inter-alia empowers the Central Government to produce, develop, use and dispose of Atomic Energy, either by itself or through any Authority or Corporation established by it or a Government Company, and carry out research into any matters connected therewith – Similarly, to manufacture or to produce any prescribed radioactive substance or the ancillary works connected therewith, the difference in language between Clauses (a) and (b) of s.3 clearly demonstrate that a few of the functions/activities, the Central Government is empowered to do by itself or through any other authority or corporation established by it or a Government Company, and has power to manufacture or otherwise produce any prescribed or radioactive substance as per Clause (b) – There is a choice vested in the Central Government to undertake a particular act either directly or by establishing a company/PSU – Since its inception, a board has been constituted to manage the HWPs of the DAE – The retired employees admit that HWP is not incorporated under the Companies Act, is not recognised as a PSU, or functions as a Government Company – Thus, the other attributes of a separate legal entity, incorporated association, artificial person, limited liability, common seal, perpetual succession, and transferability of shares are not present. [Paras 4, 12.1] N. Manoharan, Etc. v. The Administrative Officer and Another 598 [2026] 2 S.C.R. Interpretation of Statutes – Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(e) – “means” and “does not include”: Held: The applicability or inapplicability of the PG Act depends on whether the employee comes within the inclusive definition or the exclusive definition – The same is dependent on jurisdictional facts – The exclusionary limb of s.2(e) begins with the words “but does not include” any such person (i) who holds a post under the Central Government, (ii) a State Government, (iii) is governed by any other Act or (iv) by any Rules providing payment of gratuity – The exclusionary clause, if read by applying the golden rule excludes employees of the Central and State Governments from the meaning of “employee” under the PG Act – It also excludes a person who is governed by any other act – Even if it is used as “or” but not as “and”, it excludes any such person who is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity – The provision contains the words both “means” and “does not include” – Coupling the word “means” with “includes” denotes an exhaustive definition – Conversely, the word “means” and “does not include” should be read as exclusionary language that strictly excludes the scope of the provision from certain classes – Consequently, a person who is governed by any other Act, or governed by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity, does not come within the ambit of the definition of “employee” under the PG Act – Atomic Energy Act, 1962 – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. [Para 12] Jurisdictional fact – What is: Held: A jurisdictional fact is a fact which must exist before a court, tribunal, or authority assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter – A jurisdictional fact is one on the existence or non-existence of which depends the jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority – It is the fact upon which an administrative agency’s power to act depends – If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the court, authority or officer cannot act – If a court or authority wrongly assumes the existence of such a fact, the order can be questioned by a writ of certiorari – The underlying principle is that by erroneously assuming the existence of such a jurisdictional fact, no authority can confer upon itself jurisdiction which it otherwise does not possess – In the present case, appointment orders or any other circulars for deciding the jurisdictional fact of “employees”, not adverted to. [Para 10] Supreme Court Reports [2026] 2 S.C.R. 599 Case Law Cited Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash Sharma (1998) 7 SCC 221 – distinguished.