Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1773 (JHR)

Mahendra Mohan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-11

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In all these writ applications, since the common question of facts and law are involved hence, with the consent of the respective parties, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment. 2. In the accompanied writ applications, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents-Managing Committee of the Schools, being run and managed by Hindustan Copper Limited not to close down the schools and further prayer has been made to restrain the respondent-Hindustan Copper Ltd from taking any step to terminate the services of the petitioners working as teaching and non-teaching staffs till the schools are taken over by State Government. 3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of present writ applications, as delineated in the writ applications, are that in order to facilitate the educational needs of the wards of the employees of the company as well as local residents of the area, the Management of the company long back established numbers of schools, in which, the present petitioners were working. But, all of a sudden, the Management of the company issued letter dated 16.07.2001 whereby a decision was taken to close down the schools in question. However, upon representation being made by the petitioners, the Managing Committee of the school gave assurance to the petitioners that they will pursue the matter of taking over of the School by the State Government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Management from the very right beginning attempted to create an impasse in relation to the legitimate rights of the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the schools as at the relevant time when the State Government requested the management to hand over the management and control of the school to State Government that was denied by the Management of HCL and the Management decided to run the school on its own. Therefore, the action of the Management in refusing to hand over the schools to the Government on one hand and issuing orders of termination and closing down of school on the other, amounts to colourable exercise of powers. However, later on, when request was made by the Management of school to State Government they stepped back from their earlier stand. Therefore, the action of the Management in refusing to hand over the schools to the Government on one hand and issuing orders of termination and closing down of school on the other, amounts to colourable exercise of powers. However, later on, when request was made by the Management of school to State Government they stepped back from their earlier stand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the situation of disowning by the parent-company, the casualty is teaching and non-teaching staffs of the schools in question, which led to their starvation. In order to revive his case, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a decision rendered in the case of Raj Kumar v. Director of Education and Others in Civil Appeal No. 1020 of 2011, wherein the petitioner-driver moved the Court against the order of termination for the reason that the Management Committee of the School could not purchase new buses due to shortage of funds, which resulted in petitioner being declared surplus but the Hon'ble Apex after considering the facts of the case, declared the termination in bad in law and directed to reinstate the petitioner in services. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-HCL apart from raising various grounds, as taken in counter-affidavits, at the very outset submitted that the issues raised by the petitioner has already been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others as reported in (2007) 8 SCC 279 and nothing remains to be adjudicated in these cases. 6. After hearing the parties at length and the materials available on record, the core questions which comes for determination in these case are: 1."Whether in facts and circumstances of the case any direction could be issued upon the respondents-HCL not to close down the schools OR to the respondents-State Government to take over the schools in questions OR there exists any relationship of employer-employee in between H.C.L and teaching and non-teaching staffs?" 2. Whether the petitioners have been able to show any improvement in their cases to turn around the views taken in the case of S.C. Chandra (Supra)? 7. Here, it would be apposite to straightway go to the decision rendered in the case of Chatradhar Mahto and Ors. and analogous cases v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. Whether the petitioners have been able to show any improvement in their cases to turn around the views taken in the case of S.C. Chandra (Supra)? 7. Here, it would be apposite to straightway go to the decision rendered in the case of Chatradhar Mahto and Ors. and analogous cases v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. as reported in 2003 (4) JLJR 317 , in which, the Hon'ble Court not only copiously discussed the material facts but also dealt with the legal contentions and only then came to the concrete conclusion at paragraph 33, with regard to first question that "....They being not a part of the dominant object of the Company, they cannot consequently be deemed to be the employees of the Management and therefore, the concept of taking back in service or reinstating them being a concept which occurs only between an employer and employee, cannot be extended to the petitioners." In the said decision, the Hon'ble Court has consciously reached at a concrete conclusion that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued either directing the Government to take over the school or to open a school. Similarly, a mandamus cannot be issued enforcing the Management to continue with an activity which is not included in its object and functions-education being neither a mining activity nor an industrial process. And the views taken in the case of Chatradhar Mahto (Supra) got approval by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.C. Chandra & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. as reported in (2007) 8 SCC 279 , as reflected in paragraphs 8 and 13, which are reproduced herein below: "8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The basic question before us is whether a writ of mandamus could be issued against the management of HCL. The learned Single Judge relying on the Division Bench in an identical matter pertaining to Bharat Coking Coal Limited dismissed the writ petition of the appellants. This issue was examined in an analogous writ petition and in the aforesaid case, this issue was extensively considered as to whether the management of the school is the direct responsibility of HCL or not. This issue was examined in an analogous writ petition and in the aforesaid case, this issue was extensively considered as to whether the management of the school is the direct responsibility of HCL or not. After considering the matter in detail, the learned Single Judge relying on the aforesaid judgment found that there is no relationship of master and servant with that of the teachers and other staff of the school with HCL as the management of the school was done by the Managing Committee though liberal financial grant was being made by the Corporation. By that there was no direct connection of the management of HCL with that of the management of the school. Though through various communications an impression was sought to be given that the school is being run by HCL but in substance HCL only used to provide financial assistance to the school but the management of the school was entirely different than the management of HCL. Giving financial assistance does not necessarily mean that all the teachers and staff who are working in the school have become the employees of HCL. Therefore, we are of the view that the view taken by learned Single Judge appears to be correct that there was no relationship of the management of HCL with that of the management of the school though most of the employees of HCL were in Managing Committee of school. But by that no inference can be drawn that the school had been established by HCL. The children of workers of HCL were being benefited by the education imparted by this School. Therefore, the management of HCL was giving financial aid but by that it cannot be construed that the school was run by the management of HCL. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge appears to be correct. 13. So far as issuance of mandamus to the State Government for taking over of the proprietary school is concerned, that cannot be issued because the proprietary school as defined under Section 2(d) read with Section 19 of the Act will have to make a request to the State of Jharkhand that they will bear all the financial responsibilities. 13. So far as issuance of mandamus to the State Government for taking over of the proprietary school is concerned, that cannot be issued because the proprietary school as defined under Section 2(d) read with Section 19 of the Act will have to make a request to the State of Jharkhand that they will bear all the financial responsibilities. If the Managing Committee makes a request to this effect to the State of Jharkhand, then the Government may consider but at present there is no such offer by the Managing Committee and as such no direction can be given to the State of Jharkhand to grant recognition to proprietary school because nobody is prepared to take the financial responsibilities of the management of the school. Hence, no direction can be issued to the State Government to take over the management of the school." (Own emphasis) 8. For the above facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements made in Chatradhar Mahto (Supra), which has got approval by decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in S.C. Chandra Case (Supra), and in particular the fact that the above cited judicial pronouncements gave the answer framed by this Court in negative; there is no reason or occasion by this Court to interfere with the findings recorded in the above-cited case. Furthermore, from the pleadings available on record and argued at bar, I am of the considered view that the petitioners failed to show any improvement in their cases so as to any interference could be made to the views taken in the case of S.C. Chandra (Supra) or Chatradhar Mahto (Supra). 9. Hence, the writ applications sans merit are hereby dismissed. Resultantly, all the Interlocutory Applications on board stands disposed of.