{"id":11780,"date":"1969-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969"},"modified":"2016-03-17T01:57:25","modified_gmt":"2016-03-16T20:27:25","slug":"heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969","title":{"rendered":"Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 82, \t\t 1970 SCR (1) 995<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHEAVY ENGINEERING MAZDOOR UNION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/03\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR   82\t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 995\n 1969 SCC  (1) 765\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1975 SC1329\t (5)\n MV\t    1975 SC1331\t (124,127)\n F\t    1975 SC1737\t (2,3)\n D\t    1979 SC1628\t (29)\n RF\t    1981 SC 212\t (38)\n F\t    1982 SC 697\t (21)\n D\t    1984 SC1813\t (16,21)\n R\t    1984 SC1813\t (16,21)\n D\t    1984 SC1897\t (6,8)\n F\t    1985 SC 488\t (12)\n RF\t    1988 SC 469\t (6)\n D\t    1988 SC1369\t (13)\n F\t    1988 SC1708\t (13)\n D\t    1989 SC1713\t (10)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act, 1947, ss.  2(a)  and\t 10-Industry\ncarried on by company incorporated under the Companies\tAct,\n1956-Entire share capital subscribed by Central\t Government-\nWhether\t industry  carried on \"under the authority  of\"\t the\nCentral Government and if that the \"appropriate government\".\nIndustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,  1946-Questions\npending before certifying authority-If bar to a reference of\nadjudication  under  s.10 of the  Industrial  Disputes\tAct,\n1947.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited was\tincorporated\nunder  the  Companies  Act  and\t its  entire  share  capital\ncontributed  by the Central Government.\t It was therefore  a\nGovernment  Company under s. 617 of the Companies  Act.\t its\nMemorandum  and\t Articles  conferred  large  powers  on\t the\nCentral Government including the power to give directions as\nregards the operation of the Company, the wages and salaries\nof  its employees, and the appointment of directors  of\t the\ncompany.  Certain disputes arose between the Company and its\nworkmen\t whereupon  the State Government of  Bihar  referred\nthese  disputes\t by a notification in November 1956  to\t the\nIndustrial  Tribunal for adjudication.\tThe workmen  through\ntheir union filed a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of\nthe Constitution disputing the validity of the reference  on\ntwo grounds :(i)    that the appropriate Government to\tmake\nthe said reference under s.   10 of the Industrial  Disputes\nAct,  1947  was\t the Central Government and  not  the  State\nGovernment;  and  (ii)\tthat  the  questions  referred\t for\nadjudication  were at the time actually pending\t before\t the\ncertifying   authority\tunder  the   Industrial\t  Employment\n(Standing   Orders)  Act,  1946,  on  an   application\t for\nmodification of the Company's Standing Orders and  therefore\nthe  said questions would not be industrial  disputes  which\ncould be validly referred for adjudication.  The High  Court\nnegatived  both the contentions and upheld the\tvalidity  of\nthe reference.\nIn  appeal  to\tthis Court under Art. 133  (i)\t(c)  it\t was\ncontended  inter  alia on behalf of the appellant  that\t the\nindustry in question was \"carried on under the authority  of\nthe Central Government\" within the meaning of s. 2(a) of the\nAct and the reference under s. 10 was therefore required to\nbe   made by that Government.\nHELD,  Dismissing  the\tappeal : (i) The  words\t \"under\t the\nauthority of\" mean pursuant to the authority, such as where.\nan  agent  or  a  servant acts\tunder  or  pursuant  to\t the\nauthority of his principal or master.  That obviously cannot\nbe  said of a company incorporated under the  Companies\t Act\nwhose  constitution, powers and functions are  provided\t for\nand  regulated\tby  its memorandum of  association  and\t the\narticles  of  association.  An incorporated  company  has  a\nseparate  existence and the law recognises it as a  juristic\nperson\tseparate  and distinct from its members.   The\tmere\nfact that the entire share capital of the respondent-company\nwas contributed by the Central Government and the fact\tthat\nall its shares were\nL 11 Sup Cl\/69-14\n996\nheld  by the President and certain officers of\tthe  Central\nGovernment did not make any difference. [998 H-999 G]\nSalomon\t v.  Salomon  &\t Co.,  [1897]  A.C.  22;  Janson  v.\nDriefontain Consolidated Mines, [1902] A.C. 484; Kuenigi  v.\nDonnersmarck,  [1955]  1 Q.B. 515; Graham  v.  Public  Works\nCommissioners,\t[1901]\t(2)  K.B.  781;\t The  State  Trading\nCorporation  of\t India Ltd. v. The  Commercial\tTax  of<\/a>ficer\nVisakhapatnam [1964] 4 S.C.R. 99 at 188, per Shah J;  Tamlin\nv.  Hannaford  [1950]  1 K.B. 18 at 25,\t 26;  London  County\nTerritorial  and  Auxiliary Forces Association\tv.  Nichols,\n[1948] 2 All.  E.R. 432; referred to.\nAlthough   extensive  powers  were  conferred\ton   Central\nGovernment to give directions in regard to various  matters,\nthese powers were derived from the company's memorandum\t and\narticles and not by reason of the company being the agent of\nthe Central Government. [1000 B]\nThe definition of \"employer\" in s. 2(g) of the Act  suggests\nthat  an industry carried on by and under the  authority  of\nthe Government means either the industry carried on directly\nby  a  department of the Government, such as the  Posts\t and\nTelegraphs  or\tthe  Railways, or one  carried\ton  by\tsuch\ndepartment through the instrumentality of an agent. [1001 B]\nCarlsbad Mineral Water Mfg.  Co. v. P. K. Sarkar, [1952] (1)\nL.L.J. 488; Cantonment Board v. State of Punjab, [1961]\t (1)\nL.L.J.\t734:  Abdul  Rehaman Abdul Gafur v.  Mrs.  E.  Paul,\nA.I.R. 1963 Bom. 267, referred to.\n(ii) There  was\t no  force in the  contention  that  as\t the\nquestions  relating  to the modification  of  the  company's\nStanding Orders were pending before the certifying authority\nunder  the  Industrial Employees (Standing Orders)  Act,  no\nreference could be made relating to these under s. 10 of the\nAct. [1001 D]\nManagement  of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills\t Co.\nLid. v.\t  Workmen,<\/a>  [1968]  1  S.C.R.  581;  Management\t  of\nShahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. S.  S.\nRailway Workers Union,<\/a> [1969] 2 S.C.R. 131, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1463  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the Judgment and order dated September 5,\t1967
\nof   the  Patna High Court in Civil Writ  Jurisdiction\tCase
\nNo. 921 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
A.   K. Nag, Jai Kishan and Ranen Roy, for the appellant.
\nU.   P. Singh, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
B.   P. Singh, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the court was delivered by
\nShelat, J.-The Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi is
\na  company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.\t Its
\nentire\t share\tcapital\t is  contributed  by   the   Central
\nGovernment  and all its shares have been registered  in\t the
\nname  of the President of India and certain officers of\t the
\nCentral Government.  It is, therefore, a Government  company
\nwithin the
\n99 7
\nmeaning\t of s. 617 of the Companies Act.  The Memorandum  of
\nAssociation  and the Articles of Association of the  company
\nconfer large powers on the Central Government including\t the
\npower  to give directions as regards the functioning of\t the
\ncompany.   The wages and salaries of its employees are\talso
\ndetermined  in\taccordance with the  said  directions.\t The
\ndirectors of the company are appointed by the President.  In
\nits   standing\torders,\t the  company  is  described  as   a
\nGovernment undertaking.\t The workmen employed by the company
\nhave two unions, the Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union and the
\nHatia Project Workers Union.\n<\/p>\n
Certain\t disputes having arisen between the company and\t its
\nworkmen, into which it is not necessary for the purposes  of
\nthis  judgment to go, the State Government of Bihar  by\t its
\nnotification dated November 15, 1966 referred two  questions
\nto  the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication :  firstly,
\nas  regards  the number of festival holidays  and  secondly,
\nwhether the second Saturday in a month should be an off-day.
\nThe  Mazdoor  Union thereupon filed a  writ  petition  under
\nArts.  226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court  of
\nPatna  disputing the validity of the said reference  on\t two
\ngrounds\t : (1) that the appropriate Government to  make\t the
\nsaid  reference under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes\tAct,
\n1947 was the Central Government and not the State Government
\nand  (2)  that the questions referred to were  at  the\ttime
\nactually  pending before the certifying authority under\t the
\nIndustrial  Employment\t(Standing Orders) Act,\t1946  on  an
\n‘application  for  modification of  the\t company’s  standing
\norders\tand that therefore the said questions would  not  be
\nindustrial  disputes  which could be  validly  referred\t for
\nadjudication.\tBefore the High Court it was  conceded\tthat
\nthe  company was not an industry carried on by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment but the contention was that considering the\tfact
\nthat the entire share capital was contributed by the Central
\nGovernment  and extensive powers were conferred on  it,\t the
\ncompany must be regarded as an industry carried on under the
\nauthority  of the Central Government and that  therefore  it
\nwas  that  Government which was the  appropriate  Government
\nwhich  could  make  the\t said  reference.   On\tthe   second
\nquestion, the contention was that the Industrial  Employment
\n(Standing Orders) Act was a self-contained code, that once a
\nquestion  relating to conditions of service was\t before\t the
\ncertifying  authority  constituted under that  Act  and\t was
\npending\t before\t him,  the said question  could\t not  be  an
\nindustrial dispute which could be referred for\tadjudication
\nunder  s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.  It  was  urged
\nthat  consequently  the reference on both  the\tgrounds\t was
\ninvalid.  The High Court negatived both the contentions\t and
\nupheld\tthe  validity of the reference.\t The  Mazdoor  Union
\nobtained  a certificate under Art. 1 3 3 (1) (c)  and  filed
\nthis appeal impugning the correctness of that decision.\n<\/p>\n
998<\/span><\/p>\n
Under  s. 2(a) ‘appropriate Government’ (leaving  aside\t the
\nwords which are not relevant for our purposes) means (i)  in
\nrelation  to any industrial dispute concerning\tan  industry
\ncarried\t on  by\t or  under  the\t authority  of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment, the Central Government, and (ii) in relation  to
\nany  other industrial dispute the State Government.  As\t was
\ndone  before  the  High Court, Mr. Nag,\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellant-union, conceded that he would not contend that the
\ncompany is an industry carried on by the Central  Government
\nbut  argued  that  it is an industry carried  on  under\t the
\nauthority of the Central Government and therefore it is that
\nGovernment  and\t not  the  State  Government  which  is\t the
\nappropriate Government for making a reference under s. 10 of
\nthe Act.  The first question raised by the  appellant-union,
\ntherefore, turns solely upon the construction of the words ”
\ncarried\t on under the authority of the Central\tGovernment”.
\nThe  contention was primarily grounded on the fact that\t the
\nentire share capital of the company has been contributed  by
\nthe  Central  Government,  all its shares are  held  by\t the
\nPresident  and\tcertain officers of the\t Central  Government
\npresumably  its nominees and extensive control is vested  in
\nthe Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tconsidering the authorities cited by counsel  before
\nus,  we\t proceed first to examine the meaning of  the  words
\nused by Parliament in the definition clause of\t‘appropriate
\nGovernment’.  It is an undisputed fact that the company\t was
\nincorporated  under the Companies Act and it is the  company
\nso  incorporated  which\t carries on  the  undertaking.\t The
\nundertaking,  therefore, is not one carried on\tdirectly  by
\nthe  Central Government or by any one of its departments  as
\nin  the\t case of posts and telegraphs or the  railways.\t  It
\nwas,  therefore, rightly conceded both in the High Court  as
\nalso before us that it is not an industry carried on by\t the
\nCentral\t Government.  That being the position, the  question
\nthen  is, is the undertaking carried on under the  authority
\nof the Central Government?  There being nothing in s. 2\t (a)
\n,  to the contrary, the word ‘authority’ must  be  construed
\naccording to its ,ordinary meaning and therefore must mean a
\nlegal power given by one person to another to do an act.   A
\nperson is said to be authorised or to have an authority when
\nhe is in such a position that he can act in a certain manner
\nwithout\t incurring liability, to which he would\t be  exposed
\nbut for the authority, or, so as to produce the same  effect
\nas if the person granting the authority had for himself done
\nthe  act.  For instance, if A authorises B to  sell  certain
\ngoods  for  and\t on his behalf and B does so,  B  incurs  no
\nliability for so doing in respect of such goods and  confers
\na good title on the purchaser.\tThere clearly arises in such
\na  case the relationship of a principal and an\tagent.\t The
\nwords  “under  the  authority  of”  mean  pursuant  to\t the
\nauthority, such as where an agent or a servant acts under or
\npursuant  to the authority of his principal or master.\t Can
\nthe respondent-company, there-\n<\/p>\n
99 9
\nfore, be said to be carrying on its business pursuant to the
\nauthority of the Central Government ? That obviously  cannot
\nbe  said of a company incorporated under the  Companies\t Act
\nwhose  constitution, powers and functions are  provided\t for
\nand  regulated\tby  its memorandum of  association  and\t the
\narticles  of  association.  An incorporated company,  as  is
\nwell known, has a separate existence and the law  recognises
\nit  as\ta juristic person, separate and\t distinct  from\t its
\nmembers.   This new personality emerges from the  moment  of
\nits incorporation and from that date the persons subscribing
\nto  its memorandum of association and others joining  it  as
\nmembers are regarded as a body incorporate or a\t corporation
\naggregate  and\tthe  new person begins\tto  function  as  an
\nentity. (of  Salomon v. Solomon & Co.) (1).  Its rights\t and
\nobligations  are different from those of  its  shareholders.
\nAction\ttaken  against\tit  does  not  directly\t affect\t its
\nshareholders.  The  company  in\t holding  its  property\t and
\ncarrying   on  its  business  is  not  the  agent   of\t its
\nshareholders.  An infringement of its rights does not give a
\ncause  of action to its shareholders.  Consequently, it\t has
\nbeen said that if a man trusts a corporation he trusts that
\nlegal  persona and must look to its assets for\tpayment;  he
\ncan call upon the individual shareholders to contribute only
\nif the Act or charter creating the corporation so  provides.
\nThe  liability of an individual member is not  increased  by
\nthe fact that he is the sole person beneficially  interested
\nin  the\t property  of the corporation  and  that  the  other
\nmembers\t have  become  members merely  for  the\t purpose  of
\nenabling the corporation to become incorporated and  possess
\nonly a nominal interest in its property or hold it in  trust
\nfor  him. (cf.\tHalsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.  9,
\np. 9).\tSuch a company even possesses the nationality of the
\ncountry\t under\tthe  laws  of  which  it  is   incorporated,
\nirrespective, of the nationality of its members and does not
\ncease  to have that nationality even if in times of  war  it
\nfalls  under  enemy  control. (cf.   Janson  v.\t Driefontain
\nConsolidated  Mines(2) and Kuenigi v. Donnersmarck(3).\t The
\ncompany\t so  incorporated derives its powers  and  functions
\nfrom and by virtue of its memorandum of association and\t its
\narticles of association.  Therefore, the mere fact that\t the
\nentire\t share\t capital  of  the   respondent-company\t was
\ncontributed by the Central Government and the fact that\t all
\nits shares are held by the President and certain officers of
\nthe  Central Government does not make any  difference.\t The
\ncompany\t and the shareholders being, as aforesaid,  distinct
\nentitles  the fact that the President of India\tand  certain
\nofficers  hold all its shares does not make the\t company  an
\nagent either of the President or the Central Government.   A
\nnotice\tto the President of India and the said\tofficers  of
\nthe Central Government, who hold between them all the shares
\nof the company, would not be a notice to the
\n(1)[1897]A.C.22.\t\t   (2) [1902] A.C. 484.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1955] 1 Q.B. 515.\n<\/p>\n
1000<\/span><\/p>\n
company;  nor can a suit maintainable by and in the name  of
\nthe company be sustained by or in the name of the  President
\nand the said officers.\n<\/p>\n
\t   It  is true that besides the\t Central  Government
\nhaving\t contributed  the, entire share\t capital,  extensive
\npowers\tare  conferred on it, including the  power  to\tgive
\ndirections as to how the company should function, the  power
\nto  appoint  directors and even the power to  determine\t the
\nwages and salaries payable by the company to its  employees.
\nBut  these powers are derived from the company’s  memorandum
\nof  association and the articles of association and  not  by
\nreason\tof  the\t company  being the  agent  of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment.  The question whether a corporation is an  agent
\nof the State must depend on the facts of each case.  Where a
\nstatute\t setting up a corporation so provides, such  a\tcor-
\nporation can easily be identified as the agent of the  State
\nas   in\t Graham\t v.  Public  Works  Commissioners(1)   where
\nPhillimore,  J.\t said that the Crown does in  certain  cases
\nestablish  with the consent of Parliament certain  officials
\nor bodies who are to be treated as agents of the Crown\teven
\nthough they have the power of contracting as principals.  In
\nthe absence of a statutory provision, however, a  commercial
\ncorporation  acting  on its own behalf, even  though  it  is
\ncontrolled  wholly or partially by a Government\t department,
\nwill be ordinarily presumed not to be a servant or agent  of
\nthe State.  The fact that a minister appoints the members or
\ndirectors  of a corporation and he is entitled to  call\t for
\ninformation,  to  give directions which are binding  on\t the
\ndirectors and to supervise over the conduct of the  business
\nof the corporation does not render the corporation an  agent
\nof  the\t Government. (see The State Trading  Corporation  of
\nIndia Ltd. v.  The Commercial Tax Officer,  Visakhapatnam<\/a>(2)
\nand Tamlin  v. Hannaford(3).   Such  an inference  that\t the
\ncorporation  is\t the agent of the Government  may  be  drawn
\nwhere  it  is performing in substance governmental  and\t not
\ncommercial  functions.\t(cf. London County  Territorial\t and
\nAuxiliary Forces Association v. Nichols(4)
\n   In this connection the meaning of the word ’employer’  as
\ngiven  in  s. 2 (g) of the Act may be looked  at  with\tsome
\nprofit\tas  the legislature there has used  identical  words
\nwhile  defining\t (an employer’.\t An employer under  cl.\t (g)
\nmeans, in relation to an industry carried on by or under the
\nauthority  of any department of the Central Government or  a
\nState Government, the authority prescribed in that behalf or
\nwhere  no  such\t authority is prescribed, the  head  of\t the
\ndepartment.  No such authority has been prescribed in regard
\nto the business carried on by the respondent-
\n(1)  [1901] 2 K.B. 781.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1964] 4 S.C.R. 99 at 188, per Shah, J
\n(3)  [1950] 1 K.B. 18 at 25, 26.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1948] 2 All.  E.R. 432.\n<\/p>\n
1001<\/span><\/p>\n
company.   But\tthat  does not mean that  the  head  of\t the
\ndepartment which gives the directions as aforesaid or  which
\nsupervises  over  the  functioning of  the  company  is\t the
\nemployer  within the meaning of s. 2(g).  The definition  of
\nthe  employer,\ton the contrary, suggests that\tan  industry
\ncarried on by or under the authority of the Government means
\neither\tthe industry carried on directly by a department  of
\nthe  Government,  such as the posts and telegraphs,  or\t the
\nrailways,  or one carried on by such department through\t the
\ninstrumentality of an agent.  We find that the view which we
\nare  inclined  to take on the interpretation of s.  2(a)  is
\nalso  taken  by\t the High Courts  of  Calcutta,\t Punjab\t and
\nBombay.\t (see  Carlsbad\t Mineral Water Mfg.  Co.  v.  P.  K.
\nSarkar(1), Cantonment Board v. State of Punjab(2) and  Abdul
\nRehaman\t Abdul\tGofur v. Mrs. E. Paul(3).  In our  view\t the
\ncontention  that  the  appropriate Government  to  make\t the
\naforesaid  reference was the Central Government and not\t the
\nState Government has no merit and cannot be sustained.
\nThe  second contention that the questions referred  to\twere
\nregulated   by\t the  company’s\t standing  orders   and\t  an
\napplication  for a modification of the said standing  orders
\nrelating to those questions was actually pending before\t the
\ncertifying   authority\t under\tthe   Industrial   Employees
\n(Standing Orders) Act precluded a reference thereof under s.
\n10 of the Act requires no discussion as it is covered by the
\ndecision  in Management of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton &\tSilk
\nMills  Co. Ltd. v. Workmen<\/a>(4) and The Management of  Shahdra
\n(Delhi)\t Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. S. S.  Railway
\nWorkers Union<\/a>(5).\n<\/p>\n
Thus  neither of the two contentions can be upheld.  In\t the
\nresult the appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n(1)  (1952] 1 L.L.J. 388.\n(2)  [1961] 1 L.L.J. 734.\n(3)  A.I.R. 1963 Bom. 267.\n(4)  [1968] 1 S.C.R. 581.\n(5)  [1969] 2 S.C.R. 131.\n1002<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 82, 1970 SCR (1) 995 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: HEAVY ENGINEERING MAZDOOR UNION Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/03\/1969 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHeavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-16T20:27:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-16T20:27:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2390,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969\",\"name\":\"Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-16T20:27:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-16T20:27:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969","datePublished":"1969-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-16T20:27:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969"},"wordCount":2390,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969","name":"Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-16T20:27:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heavy-engineering-mazdoor-union-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-march-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 March, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11780","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}