Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 13 November 1980, 5 judges, 1981 AIR 344; 1981 SCR (2) 52; 1981 SCC (1) 568
The workers' challenge under Article 32 to the sale of obsolete plant of the Sindri Fertilizer Factory failed: no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) or Article 14 was violated, and the sale was neither arbitrary nor mala fide.
Facts
The Fertilizer Corporation of India, a Government company, invited tenders in 1980 to sell redundant and retired plants and equipment of its Sindri factory. After the items were modified and later substantially reduced because other public sector units needed part of the equipment, fresh offers were taken from six tenderers and the highest, Rs. 4.25 crores by Ganpatrai Agarwal, was accepted, although the highest original bid had been Rs. 7.6 crores. The workers' union, its president (a Member of Parliament) and two workers filed a writ petition under Article 32, alleging that the sale was arbitrary, caused loss to the exchequer and threatened their employment. The Attorney General objected that they had no locus standi and no fundamental right was infringed.
Questions before the Court
- Did the sale of the plant and equipment violate the workers' right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on an occupation?
- Was the decision to sell, or the manner of sale, arbitrary or mala fide so as to violate Article 14?
- Could the petitioners maintain a petition under Article 32, and what is the scope of locus standi to question dissipation of public property?
What the Court held
- Article 32 can be invoked only to enforce rights conferred by Part III; violation of a fundamental right is its sine qua non. Article 226, by contrast, extends to any other purpose.
- Article 19(1)(g) gives a general right to work in an occupation of one's choice, not a right to a particular job or post. Closure or sale of an establishment does not by itself infringe it, and here no worker had been or was likely to be retrenched.
- The decision to sell worn out, unsafe and uneconomic plant, taken after reports and with Presidential approval, was not arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide, and the fall in price followed the reduction in goods offered. Article 14 was not violated and the petition was dismissed.
- The Court observed that sales of public property should as far as possible take place publicly, and that where public property is dissipated, a section of the public directly interested may have standing to complain. It left open who may complain if a sale is shown to be arbitrary or mala fide.
Why it matters
The judgment states the difference between Article 32, confined to enforcing fundamental rights, and Article 226, which extends to any other purpose, and holds that Article 19(1)(g) does not guarantee a particular job. Both opinions favour a broader view of locus standi where public property is dissipated, and Krishna Iyer, J. (with Bhagwati, J.) reasons that a worker with a real interest could have sued under Article 226, while busybodies cannot.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“But though the right guaranteed by Article 32 is one of the highly cherished rights conferred by the Constitution, the purpose for which that right can be enforced is stated in the very article which confers that right. The violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Article 32.”
“Article 19(1) (g) confers a broad and general right which is available to all persons to do work of any particular kind and of their choice. It does not confer the right to hold a particular job or to occupy a particular post one's choice.”
“If public property is dissipated, it would require a strong argument to convince the Court that representative segments of the public or at least a section of the public which is directly interested and affected would have no right to complain of the infraction of public duties and obligations. Public enterprises are owned by the people and those who run them are accountable to the people.”
“If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and another v. Union of India and others
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 3804 of 1980 (under Article 32)
- Decided
- 13 November 1980
- Bench
- Y.V. Chandrachud (CJ), P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, A.D. Koshal
- Opinions
- Unanimous in result. Chandrachud, C.J. delivered the judgment for himself, Fazal Ali and Koshal, JJ.; Krishna Iyer, J. gave a concurring opinion for himself and Bhagwati, J., agreeing with the factual presentation and legal conclusions of the Chief Justice.
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.