KISHOR MADHUKAR PINGLIKAR V. AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (2022) 4 SCC 781:

DATE: 25/02/2022

BENCH: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

FACTS:

Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar, the appellant, was employed as a Senior Executive Engineer at the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). In 2002, he faced allegations of misconduct related to unauthorized absence and insubordination. Consequently, ARAI initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, resulting in his dismissal from service in 2003. Challenging his termination, Pinglikar approached the Industrial Tribunal, which ruled in his favor in 2010, ordering his reinstatement without back wages.

Dissatisfied with the denial of back wages, Pinglikar filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court modified the Tribunal's award in 2012, granting him 50% back wages. ARAI appealed this decision before the Supreme Court, contending that the misconduct warranted dismissal and that the award of back wages was unjustified. The Supreme Court, after examining the case, upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct and that awarding 50% back wages was appropriate under the circumstances.

ISSUES:

The primary issues a revolved around the justification and proportionality of the appellant’s dismissal from service due to alleged unauthorized absence and insubordination. The case also examined whether the Industrial Tribunal's decision to reinstate the appellant without back wages was fair and reasonable, and whether the Bombay High Court erred in modifying this award by granting 50% back wages. Additionally, the court considered whether the principles of proportionality and fairness were correctly applied in determining the legality of the appellant’s termination.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts that the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

The Court reasoned that ARAI's formation, functioning, and financial structure are not under the control and management of the government. The government does not have deep and pervasive control over ARAI, and its objects and purpose in the Memorandum of Association do not enable one to categorize its operation as a state function

Additionally, the Court noted that while ARAI performs certain public functions, such as those under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, these constitute a small fraction of its activities and do not justify categorizing ARAI as a 'State' under Article 12.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India highlights the application of the principles of proportionality and fairness in employment-related disputes. By upholding the Bombay High Court’s decision, the Court acknowledged that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence and insubordination. The judgment reflects the Court’s consistent stance that while employers have the right to enforce discipline, any punitive action must be reasonable and just. The Court’s affirmation of awarding 50% back wages also reinforces the idea that employees should not suffer undue financial hardship, especially when the termination is found to be excessive in relation to the misconduct.

Additionally, the Court’s ruling on ARAI’s legal status under Article 12 of the Constitution is significant. By holding that ARAI does not qualify as a ‘State,’ the Court effectively restricted the scope of writ jurisdiction against private entities performing limited public functions. The reasoning underscores the requirement of deep and pervasive governmental control for an entity to fall within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12. While ARAI performs certain regulatory functions under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the Court determined that these constitute only a fraction of its overall activities, thus preventing it from being classified as a public authority. This judgment clarifies the boundaries of judicial review in employment disputes involving autonomous institutions, reaffirming that such organizations are not automatically subject to constitutional writ jurisdiction.