Supreme Court Overturns High Court, Directs Parties to Resolve Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Mill Not a "State.

The SC allowed the appeals, overturning the HC's judgments, and dismissed the writ applications, directing the parties to pursue adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Mill was not deemed a "State" under Article 12, and the HC's writ jurisdiction was deemed inapplicable due to lack of public function and presence of disputed facts. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Mill is considered a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the High Court's writ jurisdiction was applicable.
3. Whether disputed questions of fact could be resolved in writ jurisdiction.

Summary:

1. Whether the Mill is considered a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Mill, a co-operative society, could be classified as a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court referred to established tests from previous cases such as Ajay Hasia and others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others. These tests include factors like government shareholding, financial assistance, monopoly status, and deep and pervasive State control. The Court found that the Mill did not meet these criteria: the State Government held only 50% shares, the Mill operated on self-generated finances, and there was no deep and pervasive State control. Consequently, the Mill was not considered an instrumentality or agency of the government and thus not a "State" under Article 12.

2. Whether the High Court's writ jurisdiction was applicable:
The Court addressed whether the High Court could entertain writ applications against the Mill. It was argued that even if the Mill was not a "State," a writ could be issued under Article 226 against any person or authority performing a public duty. However, the Court cited precedents like Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Samarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others, which held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could only be invoked if the entity performed a public function or duty. Since the Mill was engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar, which did not involve any public function, the Court concluded that the High Court's writ jurisdiction was not applicable.

3. Whether disputed questions of fact could be resolved in writ jurisdiction:
The Court noted that there were disputed questions of fact, such as whether the contesting respondents had worked for more than 240 days and whether they were permanent or seasonal workers. These issues could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction and were more appropriately addressed by courts constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ applications.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgments, and dismissed the writ applications, directing the parties to raise an industrial dispute for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

---