Untwalia, J. - (1.)In this case an important and difficult question of law in regard to the interpretation of certain Articles in Part XIV of the Constitution has arisen. Petitioner No. 1 is the Chini Mazdoor Sangh, Guraru, a Trade Union having its office at Guraru Mills in the district of Gaya; the other two petitioners are employed in the Sugar Factory at that place. The said Factory was the property of Gaya Sugar Mills Ltd., which Company went into liquidation since 14-11-1951. Shri D. C. Mehta was appointed its Official Liquidator on 1-2-52. The Factory was leased out for two years commencing from 6-12-52 to the Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd., Guraru, by the Official Liquidator. For subsequent periods it was leased out to S. K. G. Sugar Ltd. Eventually, the said Factory was sold to the State of Bihar, which took possession of the Factory and continued employment of all workers of the Factory since 26-1-62. The Factory is directly under the management and control of the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1. It is managed through the Special Officer, Chini Mill, Guraru, respondent No. 3. He has been put under the control of the Cane Commissioner, Government of Bihar, respondent No. 2, who is the Under-Secretary of the Department of Cane and Co-operation.
(2.)The petitioners' case further is that the Union made demands several times to declare the services of the workers as Government service and grant allowances and facilities accordingly. The demands were not accepted by the Government. The deficit or the surplus of the accounts of the Factory goes to the general revenue of the State of Bihar, When a question arose before the Labour Tribunal in respect of payment of bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act in regard to the sugar factories of Bihar and their workmen, the Government took the stand in Reference Case No. 8 of 1966 that the Guraru Sugar Factory is not liable to pay bonus under the said Act, as exemption has been granted to the Government concerns. The Industrial Tribunal accepted that stand of the State of Bihar and exempted the Guraru Sugar Factory from payment of bonus. The letters written on behalf of the petitioners are annexures 1 and 1/1. The stand taken on behalf of the Government before the Industrial Tribunal is contained in annexure 2 and the order of the Tribunal is annexure 3. By another letter dated 12-2-68 (annexure 4) a demand was made on behalf of the workmen to grant them privilege leave at the rate of one day for eleven days. A reply was given by the Special Officer, respondent No. 3 on 15-2-1968, a copy of which is annexure 5, stating therein that the service in the Factory was different from Government service; hence leave according to the scale applicable to the Government servants could not be given. By supplementary affidavit many letters have been filed to show that the Factory is directly owned by the Government, managed by it and payments are made to the workmen from the Government fund.
(3.)The facts pleaded by the petitioners have not been controverted by any counter-affidavit nor have they been refuted at the time of the hearing of this application. The question for consideration, therefore, is what rule or law governs the service conditions of the employees of the Guraru Factory which is owned and directly managed departmentally by the Government of Bihar. Mr. Ranen Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that all the employees of the Factory are holding posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar within the meaning of Article 309 of the Constitution and they hold civil posts under the State for the purposes of Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution. This stand of the petitioners was strenuously combated by learned Government Pleader No. 1. After determining this question, it will have to be further determined which rule or law governs the service conditions of the different types of employees of the Guraru Sugar Factory, even if their service conditions are governed by the law or the rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution.