TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules State control exempts Road Transport Corporation from holiday provisions</h1> <h3>Distt. Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada Versus K. Sivaji & Ors.</h3> Distt. Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada Versus K. Sivaji & Ors. - 2001 AIR 383, 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 193, 2001 (2) SCC 135, 2000 (3) Suppl. JT 302, 2000 (7) ... Issues:Interpretation of provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and the Andhra Pradesh Factories and Establishments (National Festival and other Holidays) Act. Determination of applicability of the said Acts to a Road Transport Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Assessment of control of the State Government over the Road Transport Corporation. Examination of the High Court's judgment regarding the control of the Road Transport Corporation by the State Government.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against a judgment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh concerning a dispute between a Road Transport Corporation and its employees regarding the payment of wages for holidays declared under the Andhra Pradesh Factories and Establishments (National Festival and other Holidays) Act. The Appellant argued that the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to them due to already granting more holidays than mandated and being exempt under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act. The High Court held that the Corporation was not under the control of the Central or State Government, making the Act applicable. The Appellant relied on a previous judgment emphasizing that an establishment deemed a State under Article 12 of the Constitution would be under government control. The Supreme Court analyzed the control of the State Government over the Corporation, highlighting provisions granting the State Government significant powers over the Corporation's affairs, management, and decision-making processes.The Supreme Court pointed out that the State Government could issue general instructions to the Corporation, supervise its operations, and even supersede or take over the Corporation if necessary. The Court emphasized that the control of the Government, as stipulated in Section 11(1)(c) of the Act, was a crucial factor in determining the Corporation's exemption from certain provisions. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that the Corporation was not under government control, emphasizing that the establishment of the Corporation by the State Government for public functions inherently implied government control. The Court found the High Court's reliance on Section 68-A of the Motor Vehicles Act misplaced, clarifying that the Corporation's status as a separate entity did not negate the State Government's control over it.Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling in favor of the Appellant Corporation. The Court concluded that the Corporation fell under the control of the State Government, thereby exempting it from the provisions of the said Act. The Appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded. The detailed analysis provided by the Supreme Court highlighted the extensive control exercised by the State Government over the Road Transport Corporation, leading to the decision in favor of the Corporation.
TaxTMI 