High Court · 2025

“ Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocat e for t he pet it ioner. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for t he St at e. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Advocat e t he respondent no.1. Heard. Pet it ioner is claim ing t he parit y wit h t he em ployees of t he St at e Governm ent for t he release of paym ent of salary. This plea cannot be accept ed. Pet it ioner t he em ployee of t he societ y and not of t he St at e Governm ent . However, t he em ployer is direct ed at least t o pay t he m inim um wages, fixed by t he St at e Governm ent t o t he pet it ioner under t he Minim um Wages Act , w it hin t en weeks from t oday. The writ pet it ion is disposed of.” t hat respondent no. 1 Learned counsel for t he appellant 6. ( writ subm it s pet it ioner) was in Large Mult i Purpose honorarium Cooperat ive Societ y Lt d., Devdung, Purola, Dist rict Ut t arkashi in t he year 1986. engaged I t is cont ended on behalf of t he 7. appellant t hat init ially honorarium at t he rat e of ₹200/ - per m ont h was paid t o such em ployees, which has now been increased to ₹6,000/- per m ont h. He furt her subm it s t hat financial condit ion of Cooperat ive Societ y is precarious and if t he Societ y is m ade t o pay m inim um wages, in t erm s of final order passed by learned Single Judge, it will not be in a posit ion t o carry on it s act ivit ies. t he Cent ral Governm ent and He furt her subm it s t hat t he st and 8 t aken by Societ y in it s count er affidavit was not at all considered. He furt her subm it s t hat Societ y in quest ion is a Prim ary Cooperat ive Societ y which is not receiving any financial aid from t he St at e m eet ing it s own resources, t herefore, writ pet it ion would not be m aint ainable against t he Societ y, however, t his aspect was not considered t his effect was alt hough pleading m ade t he count er affidavit . in para 3( iii) of it s expenses t o

9. We find subst ance in t he cont ent ion raised by t he learned counsel filed by appellant . The writ pet it ion em ployees against a Cooperat ive Societ y would not be m aint ainable. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of S.S. Rana vs. Regist rar, Cooperat ive Societ ies & anot her, report ed in ( 2006) 11 SCC 634, posit ion t he regarding m aint ainabilit y of writ pet it ion against a Prim ary Cooperat ive Societ y. Relevant para of t he said j udgm ent , are ext ract ed below: - discussed “ 1 0 . I t has not been shown before us t hat t he St at e exercises any direct or indirect cont rol over t he affairs of t he Societ y for deep and pervasive cont rol. The St at e furt herm ore is not t he m aj orit y shareholder. The St at e has t he power only t o nom inat e one Direct or. I t cannot , t hus, be said t hat t he St at e exercises any funct ional cont rol over t he affairs of t he Societ y in t he sense t hat t he m aj orit y Direct ors are nom inat ed by t he St at e. For arriving at t he conclusion t hat t he St at e has a deep and pervasive cont r ol over t he Societ y, several ot her t o be considered, nam ely, ( 1) How was t he Societ y creat ed? ( 2) Whet her it enj oys any m onopoly charact er? ( 3) Do t he funct ions of t he Societ y part ake t o st at ut ory funct ions or public funct ions? and ( 4) Can it be char act erised as public aut horit y? relevant quest ions are required 1 1 . Respondent 2, t he Societ y does not answer any of t he aforem ent ioned t est s. I n t he case of a non- st at ut ory societ y, t he cont rol t hereover would m ean t hat t he sam e sat isfies t he in Aj ay t est s Hasia v. Khalid Muj ib Sehravardi [ ( 1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC ( L&S) 258] . [ See Zoroast rian Coop. Housing Societ y Lt d. v. Dist t . Regist rar, Coop. Societ ies ( Urban) [ ( 2005) 5 SCC 632] .] t his Court t he Com panies Act or 1 2 . I t is well set t led t hat general regulat ions t he under an Act , Cooperat ive Societ ies Act , would not render t he act ivit ies of a com pany or a societ y as subj ect t o cont rol of t he St at e. Such cont rol in t erm s of t he provisions of t he Act are m eant t o ensure proper funct ioning of t he St at e or t he societ y and st at ut ory aut hor it ies would have not hing t o do wit h it s day- t o- day funct ions. 1 3 . The decision of t he seven- Judge Bench of t his Court in Pradeep Kum ar Biswas [ ( 2002) 5 SCC 111 : 2002 SCC ( L&S) 633] whereupon st rong reliance has been placed, has no applicat ion in t he inst ant case. I n t hat case, t he Bench was deciding in view of I ndia. This Court not iced a quest ion as t he t o whet her subsequent decisions of t his Court , t he law was correct ly laid down in Sabhaj it Tewary v. Union of I ndia [ ( 1975) 1 SCC 485 : 1975 SCC ( L&S) 99] and if not whet her t he sam e deserved t o be overruled. The m aj orit y opined t hat t he Council of Scient ific and I ndust rial Research ( CSI R) was “ St at e” wit hin t he m eaning of Art icle 12 of t he t he Const it ut ion of hist ory of t he form at ion t hereof, it s obj ect s and funct ions, it s m anagem ent and cont rol as also t he ext ent of financial aid received by it . Apart from t he said fact it was not iced by reason of an t he Cent ral appropriat e not ificat ion Governm ent t he t o j urisdict ion of t he Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal in t erm s of Sect ion 14( 2) of t he Adm inist rat ive Tribunals Act , 1985. I t was on t he aforem ent ioned prem ises, t hat Sabhaj it Tewary [ ( 1975) 1 SCC 485 : 1975 SCC ( L&S) 99] did not lay down t he correct law. This Court reit erat ed t he follow ing six t est s laid down in Aj ay Hasia v. Khalid Muj ib Sehravardi [ ( 1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC ( L&S) 258] : ( Pradeep Kum ar Biswas case [ ( 2002) 5 SCC 111 : 2002 SCC ( L&S) 633] , SCC pp. 149- 50, para 85) t hat CSI R was am enable t his Court issued by opined “ ( 1) One t hing is clear t hat if t he ent ir e is held by share capit al of Governm ent , it would go a long way t owards indicat ing t he inst rum ent alit y or agency of Governm ent . t he corporat ion corporat ion t hat ( 2) Where t he financial assist ance of t he St at e is so m uch as t o m eet alm ost t he ent ire expendit ure of t he corporat ion, it would afford t he corporat ion being som e im pregnat ed w it h governm ent al charact er. indicat ion of ( 3) I t m ay also be a relevant fact or … whet her t he corporat ion enj oys m onopoly st at us which is St at e- conferred or St at e- prot ect ed. indicat ion ( 4) Exist ence of deep and pervasive St at e cont rol m ay afford an t he corporat ion is a St at e agency or inst rum ent alit y. ( 5) I f t he funct ions of t he corporat ion are of public t o governm ent al funct ions, it would be a relevant t he corporat ion as an fact or inst rum ent alit y or agency of Governm ent . im port ance and closely in classifying relat ed t hat a ( 6) ‘Specifically, Governm ent is t ransferred t o a corporat ion, it would be a st rong fact or support ive of t his inference’ inst rum ent alit y or agency of Governm ent .” depart m ent corporat ion t he This Court furt her held: ( Pradeep Kum ar Biswas case [ ( 2002) 5 SCC 111 : 2002 SCC ( L&S) 633] , SCC p. 134, para 40) “ 40. The pict ure t hat ult im at ely em erges is t hat t he t est s form ulat ed in Aj ay Hasia [ ( 1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC ( L&S) 258] are not a rigid set of principles so t hat if a body falls w it hin any one of t hem it m ust , ex hypot hesi, be considered t o be a St at e w it hin t he m eaning of Art icle 12. The quest ion in each case would be — whet her in t he light of t he cum ulat ive fact s as est ablished, t he adm inist rat ively dom inat ed by or under t he cont rol of t he Governm ent . Such cont rol m ust be part icular t o t he body in quest ion and m ust be pervasive. I f t his is found t hen t he body is a St at e wit hin Art icle 12. On t he ot her hand, when t he cont rol is m erely regulat ory, whet her under st at ut e or ot herwise, it would not serve t o m ake t he body a St at e.” ” funct ionally financially, t he aforesaid reason, special 10. For appeal is allowed. I m pugned final order dat ed 24.04.2017 is set aside. However, respondent no. 1 shall be at libert y t o m ake represent at ion t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y for vent ilat ion of his grievance. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

18.06.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f 07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d136951 2ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6 F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE 58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL