Case: State of Jharkhand &amp; Another Vs. Harihar Yadav &amp; Others

State of Bihar, as it appears, tacitly acceded to the position as a result of which the employees remained at the mercy of JHALCO. At a later stage controversy cropped up, as noticed earlier, due to disagreement and difference between the two States and it was stated that a decision was taken to initiate the liquidation proceedings and the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 65 of the Act directed the State of Bihar to initiate liquidation proceedings. Government of Jharkhand conceded to the same. Because of the vacillating stand of the State of Jharkhand a distressing and unusual situation has arisen. It is not in dispute that JHALCO absorbed some of the employees but did not take any steps to deal with the other employees on some pretext or the other. There is a cavil over the assets and liabilities. We are neither concerned with the said controversy nor do we intend to express any opinion. 44. The High Court has directed the State of Bihar to pay the salary till 16.6.2011 and has directed JHALCO to absorb the unabsorbed employees. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand and JHALCO has painted a picture of frustrated affairs and further advanced the plea that there is no vacancy. As stated earlier, the learned counsel for the respondents-employees has suggested for moulding the relief to give a quietus to the litigation. 45. Having regard to the position that has emerged, we are compelled to dwell upon the role of the State as a model employer. In Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 449] , Krishna Iyer, J., has stated thus: - Social justice is the conscience of our Constitution, the State is the promoter of economic justice, the founding faith which sustains the Constitution and the country is Indian humanity. The public sector is a model employer with a social conscience not an artificial person without soul to be damned or body to be burnt. 46. In Gurmail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others [(1991) 1 SCC 189] it has been held that the State as a model employer is expected to show fairness in action. 47. In Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Another [1987 (Supp) SC 228], the Court observed that as a model employer the Government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees. 48. In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] the Court has ruled that the main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. 49. In Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another v. State of Assam and others [(2013) 2 SCC 516] , while laying emphasis on the role of the State as a model employer, though in a different context, the Court observed: It should always be borne in mind that legitimate aspirations of the employees are not guillotined and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair. Hope for everyone is gloriously precious and a model employer should not convert it to be deceitful and treacherous by playing a game of chess with their seniority. A sense of calm sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance can be concretized. 50. If the present factual matrix is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, there can be no trace of doubt that both the States and the Corporations have conveniently ostracized the concept of model employer. It would not be wrong to say that they have done so with Pacific calmness, sans vision, shorn of responsibility and oblivious of their role in such a situation. Their action reflects the attitude of emotionlessness, proclivity of impassivity and deviancy with cruel impassibility. Neither of the States nor the Corporations have even thought for a moment about the livelihood of the employees. They have remained totally alien to the situation to which the employees have been driven to. In a State of good governance the Government cannot act like an alien. It has an active role to play. It has to have a constructive and progressive vision. What would have ordinarily happened had there not been bifurcation of the State and what fate of the employees of BHALCO would have faced is a different matter altogether. The tragedy has fallen solely because of the bifurcation. True it is, under the law there has been bifurcation and the Central Government has been assigned the role to settle the controversies that had to arise between the two States. But the experimentation that has been done with the employees as if they are guinea pigs is legally not permissible and indubitably absolutely unconscionable. It hurts the soul of the Constitution and no one has the right to do so. 51. Be it noted, a contention was canvassed with immense vehemence by the appellants that the directions may be issued in respect of the respondents-employees who approached the Court. It is not a case where we shall confine the relief to the respondents alone. Earlier this Court had constituted a Committee and the State of Bihar had deposited rupees fifty crores for all the Corporations and the employees working in BHALCO who were not paid salary from 1995 were proportionately paid. Their identities are known. The employees who have died, their legal representatives are easily identifiable. A man in dire need cannot fight a litigation against two experimenting States to get his dues. It is the duty of the constitutional court, as submitted by Ms. Priya Hingorani, that all should be paid their dues as this Court may think fit. 52.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]If the present factual matrix is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, there can be no trace of doubt that both the States and the Corporations have conveniently ostracized the concept of model employer. It would not be wrong to say that they have done so with Pacific calmness, sans vision, shorn of responsibility and oblivious of their role in such a situation. Their action reflects the attitude of emotionlessness, proclivity of impassivity and deviancy with cruel impassibility. Neither of the States nor the Corporations have even thought for a moment about the livelihood of the employees. They have remained totally alien to the situation to which the employees have been driven to. In a State of good governance the Government cannot act like an alien. It has an active role to play. It has to have a constructive and progressive vision. What would have ordinarily happened had there not been bifurcation of the State and what fate of the employees of BHALCO would have faced is a different matter altogether. The tragedy has fallen solely because of the bifurcation. True it is, under the law there has been bifurcation and the Central Government has been assigned the role to settle the controversies that had to arise between the two States. But the experimentation that has been done with the employees as if they are guinea pigs is legally not permissible and indubitably absolutely unconscionable. It hurts the soul of the Constitution and no one has the right to do so51. Be it noted, a contention was canvassed with immense vehemence by the appellants that the directions may be issued in respect of the respondents-employees who approached the Court. It is not a case where we shall confine the relief to the respondents alone. Earlier this Court had constituted a Committee and the State of Bihar had deposited rupees fifty crores for all the Corporations and the employees working in BHALCO who were not paid salary from 1995 were proportionately paid. Their identities are known. The employees who have died, their legal representatives are easily identifiable. A man in dire need cannot fight a litigation against two experimenting States to get his dues. It is the duty of the constitutional court, as submitted by Ms. Priya Hingorani, that all should be paid their dues as this Court may think fit.