Sk Naseeruddin vs Cement Corporation Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 453 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI



HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                            &

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY


                         WRIT APPEAL No.51 of 2022
                                  (Through virtual mode)

SK. Naseeruddin S/o. K.M. Chisti,
Aged about 67 years, Occ: Rtd. Welder,
R/o. Door No.6-210, Near Old Bus stand,
Mangalagiri, Guntur District, and others.
                                                           .. Appellants
       Versus

Cement Corporation of India,
Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Regd. office at Core 5, Scope Complex,
7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 and others.
                                                           .. Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners              : Mr. Y. Subba Rao
Counsel for respondent No.1              : Ms. V. Uma Devi
Counsel for respondent Nos.2&3           : Mr. Challa Gunaranjan



                                  ORAL JUDGMENT

                                    Dt: 31.01.2022

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.No.19095 of 2012 vide order dated

01.11.2021 by the learned single Judge, the writ petitioners have preferred

the present appeal.

2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the appellants/writ petitioners

seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3

in not implementing the Circular No.PD/PP/1(62)/2001/7184 dated

26.04.2012 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary and for a

consequential direction for implementation of the said Circular.

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants/writ

petitioners were originally employees on the rolls of Cement Corporation of

India Limited and working at its cement manufacturing unit, namely,

Yerraguntla Cement Factory, Kadapa. The said unit was subsequently

referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and

was declared sick. The unit was put to sale through global bidding process

and on acceptance of the offer of the second respondent - India Cements

Limited, the unit was sold to it in the year 1997 and since thereafter, the

employees working therein, including the appellants/writ petitioners, have

become the employees of the second respondent, which is a private

company. While so, the Cement Corporation of India Limited issued a

Circular dated 26.04.2012, by virtue of which the age of retirement of the

employees of the Cement Corporation of India Limited was enhanced from

58 years to 60 years, and seeking implementation of the said Circular in the

second respondent unit, the appellants/writ petitioners have filed the writ

petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge by the order

under appeal.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/writ

petitioners that under the Memorandum of Understanding entered into

between the Cement Corporation of India Limited and the second

respondent, the service conditions of the employees of Cement Corporation

of India Limited shall remain protected and the Circular issued by the

Cement Corporation of India Limited would be binding on the second

respondent and, therefore, the appellants/writ petitioners would be entitled

to continue in service upto 60 years in terms of the Circular dated

26.04.2012 issued by the Cement Corporation of India Limited.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

supported the order under appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties for considerable time

and on due consideration, we are of the considered opinion that this writ

appeal must fail for reasons more than one. Firstly, the writ petition, in

substance, was for issuance of a writ of Mandamus against the second

respondent, which is a private company. It is settled law that a writ cannot

be issued against a private body unless there is non-compliance or violation

of any statutory provision [see Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas

reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733]. Secondly, after the purchase of

Yerraguntla Cement Factory by the second respondent in the year 1997, the

relationship of employer-employee ceased to exist between the Cement

Corporation of India Limited and the appellants/writ petitioners and the

Cement Corporation of India Limited lost its control over the services of the

appellants/writ petitioners. That being the position, the appellants/writ

petitioners cannot claim the benefit under the circular issued by the Cement

Corporation of India Limited in the year 2012, i.e., after about 15 years of

acquisition of the unit by the second respondent.

7. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

IBL