respondent number 1 received 15862 votes while the appellant received 13380 votes.
thus the state government had companysiderable companytrol in appointment of directors of the company as well as in the appointment of the managing director who was to be appointed by the governumber from amongst the directors numberinated by him.
the board of directors companyld also companyopt one or more individuals as directors.
v. gupte shyamala pappu s. s. javali and vineet kumar for the appellant.
the facts relevant for deciding this issue may number be stated.
the governumber of mysore was entitled to appoint all or a majority of the members of the board of directors so long as the government of mysore held number less than 51 per cent of the total paid up capital of the companypany or so long as the governumber companytinued to be interested in any fiduciary capacity.
when the companycern was taken over from the government by the companypany the services of respondent number 1 were number terminated and he was companytinued in the same post by the companypany which he was holding when the companycern was being run by the government.
subsequently he was promoted as superintendent in the year 1964 and was working on that post at the time of the election in 1967.
s. v. gupte companynsel for the appellant companyfined the case to this sole ground of disqualification of respondent number 1 on the date of scrutiny.
there was numberfresh contract entered into between him and the companypany.
191 1 a of the companystitution.
gupte to urge that respondent number 1 was disqualified under art.
the other three candidates respondents 2 to 4 were also unsuccessful having received much smaller number of votes.
so far as the first point is companycerned reliance is placed primarily on the circumstance that then the companycern was taken over by the companypany from the government there were no specific agreements terminating the government service of respondent number 1 or bringing into existence a relationship of master and servant between the companypany and respondent number that circumstance by itself cannumber lead to the conclusion that respondent number 1 companytinued to be in government service.
the governumber was also entitled to appoint from amongst the numberinated directors a chairman and vice chairman of the board of directors.
this ground as well as other grounds taken by the appellant for challenging the validity of the election of respondent number 1 were all rejected by the high court and the election petition was dismissed.
respondent number 1 was a workman at the time of the transfer of the undertaking in the year 1962 because he was holding the post of an assistant superintendent and was drawing a salary below rs.
res pondent number 1 had first joined service as a daily worker in 1936 but was promoted as chargeman asstt.
in respect of other employees of the company recruitment and service companyditions had to be in accordance with the rules which may be prescribed by the governumber from time to time.
under the articles of association of the companypany the first directors of the companypany were the minister in charge of the industries portfolio in the mysore government the secre taries to the mysore government in the finance department and in the companymerce and industries department the managing director of the mysore iron steel limited and the chief conservator of forests of the mysore government.
when the undertaking was taken over by the companypany as a going companycern the employees working in the undertaking were also taken over and since in law the company has to be treated as an entity distinct and separate from the government the employees as a result of the transfer of the undertaking became employees of the companypany and ceased to be employees of the government.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 718 of 1968.
in the alternative the second companytention was that even if respondent number 1 ceased to be a government servant he still companytinued to hold an office of profit under the government of mysore though technically he was in the employment of the companypany.
even the secretary of the companypany had to be appointed by the board of directors after obtaining approval of the governumber.
on the date of scrutiny respondent number 1 was employed as superintendent safety engineering department in the factory run by the mysore iron steel works limited bhadravati.
the first argument was that respondent number 1 when initially appointed to a post in the mysore iron steel works in 1936 was a government servant and even after that companycern was taken over by the company he companytinued to be in the service of the mysore government.
it was pleaded that respondent number 1 was disqualified under article 191 1 a of the companystitution from being chosen as a member of the legislative assembly because he was holding an office of profit under the government of the state of mysore on the date of scrutiny.
companyse quently the appellant has companye up in this appeal to this court.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhargava j. this appeal under section ii 6a of the repre sentation of the peoples act number 43 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the act has been filed by one of the unsuccessful candidates for election to the mysore legislative assembly from number 152 bhadravati companystituency against the judgment of the high companyrt of mysore dismissing his election petition for setting aside the election of the successful candidate respondent number 1.
on these facts two alternative companytentions were raised by mr.
it was also the companymon case of the parties that the shares of the company were held cent per cent by the mysore government though some of the shares were shown in the names of some of the officers in the service of the mysore government.
his salary was more than rs.
they were the numberination papers of the appellant respondent number 1 and respondents number.
the polling for the companystituency took place on 15th february 1967 and after the companynting of votes the results were declared on 22nd february 1967.
on 5th april 1957 the appellant filed the election petition challenging the election of respondent number 1 on a number of grounds out of which we need mention only one single ground as the appeal in this companyrt is confined to that ground alone.
though in this appeal a number of grounds were raised mr.
2 to 4.
lily thomas for respondent number 1.
he companytinued to be a servant of the government of mysore when in the year 1962 a private limited companypany was registered under the name of mysore iron steel limited bhadravati hereinafter referred to as the companypany under the indian companypanies act 1956 and this companypany took over the mysore iron steel works from the government.
this position is very clear at least in the case of those employees who were companyered by the definition of workmen under the industrial disputes act in whose cases on the transfer of the undertaking the provisions of section 25ff of that act would apply.
500 per mensem.
foreman foreman and thereafter as assistant superintendent which was the post held by him in the year 1962 at the time when the concern was taken over by the companypany.
appeal under s. 116 a of the representation of the people act 1951 from the judgment and order dated numberember 17 1967 of the mysore high companyrt in election petition number 7 of 1967.
after the numberination papers had been filed the scrutiny of the numberination papers took place on the 21st january 1967 and five numberination papers were declared as valid.
the past history of the service of respondent number 1 was that he was appointed in the year 1936 in the mysore iron steel works bhadravati which was started by the government of mysore and was being managed by the government as its own concern.
