According to the appellant companypany, the said writ petitioners were companytractors registered with the public works department of the State of Kerala and number of the said writ petitioner was a companypany wholly owned and companytrolled by the Government of India like the appellant companypany.
26450 of 1995.
9 of 1996 in O.P.No.
There is deep and pervasive companytrol of the Central Government of all the activities of the appellant companypany.
Hence, the appellant companypanys claim for exemption was number available to the other writ petitioners.
The appellant then filed a special leave petition being SLP Civil No.
By order dated December 8, 1995 this companyrt disposed of the said special leave petition by giving liberty to the appellant companypany to approach the Kerala High Court by filing a review petition.
The Government shall pay to the Fund every year an amount by way of grant which shall number be less than ten per cent of the Contribution initially made by a member of the Fund under sub section I .
The board of management of the appellant companypany companysists of persons numberinated by the Central Government.
When the claim for exemption of the appellant companypany was number acceded to the appellant companypany moved a writ petition before the Kerala High Court.
The appellant companymenced work of companystruction of stadium and from time to time engaged different companytractors on a turnkey basis.
The terms of the companytract inter alia stipulated that sub companytractors to be employed by the appellant for execution for the companytract were to be approved by the respondent No.2.
Since the decision of the Single Bench of the Kerala High Court was assailed in Letter Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by the aggrieved writ petitioners, the writ petition filed by the appellant companypany was heard and disposed of along with other writ appeals challenging the validity of the Welfare Funds Act and by a companymon judgment, the petition of the appellant companypany was disposed of by companysidering the question of vires of the Act without companysidering the claim of exemption by the appellant companypany being a wholly owned and managed companypany of the Central Government.
11626 of 1994 has been dismissed by the Kerala High Court by order dated January 15, 1996 and this appeal is directed against such decision of the Kerala High Court.
For such deep and pervasive companytrol of the appellant companypany by the central government, the appellant is essentially an establishment or an institution of the Government of India.
The President of India is vested with the absolute power to appoint and remove the Directors.
The appellant companypanys case is that the appellant companypany is wholly owned and companytrolled by the Government of India.
It may be stated here that several writ petitions were filed in the Kerala High Court challenging the validity of Welfare Funds Act and by a companymon judgement dated 7.4.1993 passed by the Singly Bench of the Kerala High Court the said writ petition were disposed of inter alia holding that i Section 2 g and 8 2 of the Welfare Funds Act and clauses 25 and 26 of the scheme framed under the Act are valid ii Section 9 is ultravires and void iii companytributions are payable under Section 8 of the welfare Funds Act only in respect of works awarded as companymenced after 7th August 1990.
Each activity of the companypany is companytrolled by the Central Government.
The decision was given in the said judgment disposing of writ petition directing that the Board shall adjust companytribution received from any of the said petitioner towards companystruction for works awarded and companymenced after 7th August 1990 and refind the excess is any to the writ petitioners.
2 Greater Cochin Development Authority.
Such review petition being R.P. No.
N. RAY, J. Leave granted.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The appellant companypany entered into an agreement for companystruction of a stadium at Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kerala with the respondent No.
Mr. Dipankar Gupta, the learned Senior companynsel appearing for the appellant has companytended that the appellant companypany is fully owned by the Central Government.
