Skip to content


In Re: Kerala Water Transport Corporation Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberReport No. 45 in C.P. No. 1 of 1965
Judge
Reported in[1967]37CompCas538(Ker); (1967)IILLJ107Ker
ActsPayment of Bonus Act, 1965 - Sections 2(1), (16), 10, 20(1) and 32; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 457(1) and 617
AppellantIn Re: Kerala Water Transport Corporation Ltd.
Advocates: Official Liquidator for Company and;Government Pleader for Government of Kerala
Excerpt:
- - the sale of coffee can very well be in competition with the sale of tea and i have nodoubt that ail transport services carrying the same kind of traffic between the same places, whether by rail, air, road or water run in competition with one another......of section 32(x) must be read as 'by or under' for undisputedly there are establishments in private sector carrying goods and passengers between the same places as this establishment was carrying them. therefore the establishment was rendering services in competition with establishments in private sector and it is not denied that its entire income whatever it was, was from such services. that the establishments in private sector were, at any rate so far as passenger services were concerned, road transport services, does not make the water transport services of the establishment any the less competing services. the test of competition between two persons in the supply whether of goods or services is not whether the goods or services supplied are of the very same description, but.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.T. Raman Nayar, J.

1. The sanction sought in paragraph 4 of the report is accorded.

2. The company that is being wound up is a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act. Its business of running water transport services was being continued by the liquidator under Section 457(1)(b) of that Act. The winding up order did not put an end to the company --- that is yet to be done by an order of dissolution - - and there can be no doubt that, the winding up order notwithstanding, the business is an establishment owned by a Government company and therefore an 'establishment in public sector' as defined by Section 2(16) of Central Act 21 of 1965 (the Act for short).

It is not disputed that the bonus the liquidator proposes to pay to the employees of the establishment is in accord with what is payable under Section 10 of the Act; the contention is that the section itself does not apply by reason of Section 32(x) which says that nothing in the Act shall apply to employees employed by any establishment in public sector save as otherwise provided under the Act. But the Act does, by Section 20(1), otherwise provide that the 'under' of Section 32(x) must be read as 'by or under' for undisputedly there are establishments in private sector carrying goods and passengers between the same places as this establishment was carrying them. Therefore the establishment was rendering services in competition with establishments in private sector and it is not denied that its entire income whatever it was, was from such services. That the establishments in private sector were, at any rate so far as passenger services were concerned, road transport services, does not make the water transport services of the establishment any the less competing services. The test of competition between two persons in the supply whether of goods or services is not whether the goods or services supplied are of the very same description, but whether the custom of the one can be attracted by the other.

The sale of coffee can very well be in competition with the sale of tea and I have nodoubt that ail transport services carrying the same kind of traffic between the same places, whether by rail, air, road or water run in competition with one another. Persons or goods which would otherwise have been transported by the establishments in private sector were undoubtedly being transported by this establishment and it seems to me beyond doubt that this establishment was rendering services in competition with those,

3. For these reasons the objections takenby the State Government and other creditorsof the company are rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //