Holding

Employees of the Heavy Water Plant are excluded from the definition of ‘employee’ under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and therefore the Act does not apply to them.

Summary

The case concerned whether the retired employees of the Heavy Water Plant (HWP) of the Department of Atomic Energy, Tuticorin, are covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The employees had received gratuity under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and sought the higher amount prescribed under the Gratuity Act, leading the Controlling Authority to hold that the Act applied. HWP challenged this, arguing that its staff are central government servants governed by the Atomic Energy Act and therefore fall within the exclusionary clause of Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act. The Supreme Court examined the statutory construction of Section 2(e), the meaning of “does not include”, and the jurisdictional fact of whether HWP is an autonomous industrial establishment or an adjunct of the Department of Atomic Energy. Relying on the exclusionary limb, the Court held that employees holding civil posts under the Central Government and governed by other rules are excluded from the definition of “employee” under the Gratuity Act. Consequently, Sections 5 and 14 of the Gratuity Act are inapplicable, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether employees of HWP are “employees” within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Whether the exclusionary clause of Section 2(e) applies to employees governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules and the Atomic Energy Act.
Whether Sections 5 and 14 of the Gratuity Act can override the CCS (Pension) Rules in this context.
Whether HWP constitutes an industrial establishment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or an adjunct of the Department of Atomic Energy.

Legislation cited

Atomic Energy Act, 1962s. 3
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972s. 14, s. 2(e), s. 5

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the employees of Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Tuticorin (“HWP”) are covered by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Headnotes† Atomic Energy Act, 1962 – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 – s.2(e) – Retired employees of HWP employees governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 claimed higher gratuity benefits under the PG Act – Controlling Authority held that the provisions of the PG Act are attracted to the employees of HWP, and directed to pay the difference of

Subjects

Heavy Water PlantDepartment of Atomic EnergyPayment of Gratuity ActSection 2(e)GratuityRetirement benefitsJurisdictional factHeavy Water BoardHeavy Water Projects BoardIndustrial Disputes Act

Judgment

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 596 : 2026 INSC 143

N. Manoharan, Etc.
v.
The Administrative Officer and Another
(Civil Appeal No(s). 1513-1522 of 2026)
11 February 2026
[Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the employees of Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic
Energy, Government of India, Tuticorin (“HWP”) are covered by
the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Headnotes†
Atomic Energy Act, 1962 – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 –
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(e) – Retired employees
of HWP employees governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 claimed higher gratuity benefits under the PG Act –
Controlling Authority held that the provisions of the PG
Act are attracted to the employees of HWP, and directed to
pay the difference of gratuity between the PG Act and CCS
(Pensions) Rules, 1972 – HWP filed appeal before the Deputy
Chief Labour Commissioner, dismissed – Writ Petitions filed
by HWP, dismissed – In appeal, High Court held that since the
Appellants held “civil posts under the Central Government”
and were governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which
provide for gratuity, they fall squarely within the exclusion
clause and therefore, do not come within the meaning of
“employees” u/s.2(e), PG Act – Interference, if warranted:
Held: No, impugned order agreed with – The exclusionary limb
of s.2(e) begins with the words “but does not include” any such
person who holds a post under the Central Government; a State
Government; is governed by any other Act or; by any Rules providing
payment of gratuity – HWP is created to manage the projects of the
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) for the production of heavy
water – HWP at Tuticorin is a project under the management of the
Heavy Water Projects Board of the DAE, and cannot, by sieving,

* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 597

N. Manoharan, Etc. v. The Administrative Officer and Another

separate itself from being an ancillary or adjunct of the DAE –
For the limited purpose of gratuity, the larger and comprehensive
establishment of atomic energy facilities by the Central Government
is not replaced with a very narrow construction of the functional
freedom given to the Heavy Water Projects Board or individual
Heavy Water Plants – HWP is an adjunct or ancillary operating
through the Heavy Water Projects Board of the DAE – Constitution,
establishment, and continuation examined, HWP is an adjunct of
the Department of Atomic Energy – Therefore, the employees fall
within the exclusionary clause of s.2(e) of the PG Act – Thus, ss.5
and 14 are not attracted in deciding on the applicability of the PG
Act to the employees of HWP. [Paras 12-14]

Atomic Energy Act, 1962 – s.3 – High Court inter alia held that
Heavy Water Board (HWB) functions directly under the Ministry
and the employees were Central Government servants, not
merely employees of an autonomous industrial unit:
Held: The Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, is
the Department through which the Central Government discharges
the functions, duties, and responsibilities assigned to it under
the AE Act – s.3 inter-alia empowers the Central Government to
produce, develop, use and dispose of Atomic Energy, either by
itself or through any Authority or Corporation established by it or
a Government Company, and carry out research into any matters
connected therewith – Similarly, to manufacture or to produce any
prescribed radioactive substance or the ancillary works connected
therewith, the difference in language between Clauses (a) and (b)
of s.3 clearly demonstrate that a few of the functions/activities, the
Central Government is empowered to do by itself or through any
other authority or corporation established by it or a Government
Company, and has power to manufacture or otherwise produce
any prescribed or radioactive substance as per Clause (b) – There
is a choice vested in the Central Government to undertake a
particular act either directly or by establishing a company/PSU –
Since its inception, a board has been constituted to manage the
HWPs of the DAE – The retired employees admit that HWP is
not incorporated under the Companies Act, is not recognised as
a PSU, or functions as a Government Company – Thus, the other
attributes of a separate legal entity, incorporated association,
artificial person, limited liability, common seal, perpetual succession,
and transferability of shares are not present. [Paras 4, 12.1]
598 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Interpretation of Statutes – Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 –
s.2(e) – “means” and “does not include”:
Held: The applicability or inapplicability of the PG Act depends
on whether the employee comes within the inclusive definition or
the exclusive definition – The same is dependent on jurisdictional
facts – The exclusionary limb of s.2(e) begins with the words “but
does not include” any such person (i) who holds a post under the
Central Government, (ii) a State Government, (iii) is governed by any
other Act or (iv) by any Rules providing payment of gratuity – The
exclusionary clause, if read by applying the golden rule excludes
employees of the Central and State Governments from the meaning
of “employee” under the PG Act – It also excludes a person who
is governed by any other act – Even if it is used as “or” but not
as “and”, it excludes any such person who is governed by any
other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity – The
provision contains the words both “means” and “does not include” –
Coupling the word “means” with “includes” denotes an exhaustive
definition – Conversely, the word “means” and “does not include”
should be read as exclusionary language that strictly excludes
the scope of the provision from certain classes – Consequently,
a person who is governed by any other Act, or governed by any
Rules providing for payment of gratuity, does not come within the
ambit of the definition of “employee” under the PG Act – Atomic
Energy Act, 1962 – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. [Para 12]

Jurisdictional fact – What is:
Held: A jurisdictional fact is a fact which must exist before a court,
tribunal, or authority assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter – A
jurisdictional fact is one on the existence or non-existence of which
depends the jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority – It
is the fact upon which an administrative agency’s power to act
depends – If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the court, authority
or officer cannot act – If a court or authority wrongly assumes the
existence of such a fact, the order can be questioned by a writ of
certiorari – The underlying principle is that by erroneously assuming
the existence of such a jurisdictional fact, no authority can confer
upon itself jurisdiction which it otherwise does not possess – In the
present case, appointment orders or any other circulars for deciding
the jurisdictional fact of “employees”, not adverted to. [Para 10]
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 599

N. Manoharan, Etc. v. The Administrative Officer and Another

Case Law Cited
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash Sharma (1998)
7 SCC 221 – distinguished.
Arun Kumar v. Union of India [2006] Supp. 6 SCR 290 : (2007) 1
SCC 732; Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P. [1988] Supp. 2
SCR 1088 : (1989) 1 SCC 164; P. Kasilingam and Others v. P.S.G
College of Technology and Others [1995] 2 SCR 1061 : (1995)
Supp. SCC 2 348 – referred to.

List of Acts
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Atomic Energy Act, 1962; CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

List of Keywords
Employees of Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy,
Government of India, Tuticorin are not covered by the provisions
of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; HWP; Section 2(e) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Differential gratuity amounts;
Retirement benefits; Gratuity; Department of Atomic Energy,
Government of India; Jurisdictional fact; Heavy Water Boards;
Heavy Water Projects Board of the DAE.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 1513-1522
of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2023 and 02.08.2023
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 24935 of
2021, and WP Nos. 7108, 14893, 697, 704, 9116, 8561, 13031,
15909, and 14896 of 2023, respectively
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 1523-1554 and 1555 of 2026

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv., K. Paari Vendhan,
Aayushman Aggarwal, Shrutanjay Bhardwaj, Raghunatha
Sethupathy B, Siddhi Nagwekar.
600 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Advs. for the Respondent(s):
S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G., Khushal Kolwar, Parthvi Ahuja, Ms. Nikita
Sethi, Shubham Prakash Mishra, Akshsat Aggarwal, Ms. Arunima
Diwedi, Rajeev Ranjan, Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Raman
Yadav, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Aurnima
Diwedi, Rajeev Ranjan, Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav,
Saurabh Kumar Kaushik, Amrish Kumar.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Leave granted.
2. The point for consideration in the subject Civil Appeals is whether
the employees of Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy,
Government of India, Tuticorin (“HWP”) are covered by the provisions
of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“PG Act”).
3. The Civil Appeals arise from a common Judgment dated 21.06.2023
in Writ Appeal No. 1687 of 2021, Writ Petition No. 19117 and batch.
The impugned Judgment held and declared that the employees of
HWP are not covered by the definition of Section 2(e) of the PG Act.
Hence, the Civil Appeals are at the instance of the retired employees
of HWP. The circumstances leading to the dispute between the parties
are admitted and fall within a narrow compass.
4. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (“AE Act”), was enacted by the
Parliament and is effective from 15.09.1962. The objective of the
AE Act is to provide for the development, control and use of atomic
energy for the welfare of the people of India and for other peaceful
purposes. Section 3 of the AE Act deals with ‘General Powers of
the Central Government’ to produce, develop, use and dispose of
atomic energy, either by itself or through any Authority or Corporation
established by it, or a Government Company; and carry out research
into any materials connected therewith. Section 3 of the AE Act is
comprehensive and encompasses all primary and ancillary activities
undertaken by the Central Government relating to atomic energy.
The Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India (“DAE”), is
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 601

N. Manoharan, Etc. v. The Administrative Officer and Another

the Department through which the Central Government discharges
the functions, duties, and responsibilities assigned to it under the
AE Act. The parties admit the following hierarchy of departments
vis-à-vis atomic energy:

5. On 01.05.1969, the Government of India/DAE issued Office
Memorandum No. 12/7/69-(P) for the constitution of a Board to
administer the Heavy Water Production Projects of the DAE. The
operative portion of the Office Memorandum reads as follows:
602 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

6. The HWP in Tuticorin is one of the Heavy Water Boards established
by the DAE. The circumstance precipitating a dispute between the
retired employees and HWP can be traced to one of the pension
payment orders issued by HWP. On 25.07.2014, the pension payment
order in favour of retired employee, N. Manoharan, was issued
under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 deal with comprehensively the retirement benefits to which a
retired employee is entitled, including gratuity. The sum payable as
gratuity under the PG Act and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, is less
than the sum payable under the PG Act. This led to an employee
of HWP filing an application before the Controlling Authority under
the PG Act. The Controlling Authority held that the provisions of
the PG Act are attracted to the employees of HWP, and a direction
was ordered to pay the difference between the PG Act and CCS
(Pensions) Rules, 1972. The Controlling Authority, on jurisdictional
fact and the applicability of the PG Act, held that HWP, constitutes
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 603

N. Manoharan, Etc. v. The Administrative Officer and Another

an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, making the
applicant-employee eligible for coverage under Section 1(3)(b) of
the PG Act. The Controlling Authority also relied on the Order dated
29.01.2016 of the High Court of Madras in WP Nos. 23577 to 23579
of 2015 and batch. HWP, Tuticorin, challenging the Order of the
Controlling Authority, filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner, and the appeal filed was dismissed. The primacy of
consideration of the appellate authority as well proceeds on the fact
that HWP is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and
the employees are industrial employees covered by the first limb of
Section 2(e) of the PG Act.
7. HWP assailed the orders before the High Court in Writ Petition No.
23127 of 2015 and batch, which were dismissed on 31.03.2016,
resulting in the filing of Writ Appeal No. 1687 of 2021. The record
discloses that HWP filed Writ Petition No. 13346 of 2023 and batch
challenging the subsequent orders of the Controlling Authority
directing payment of the difference of gratuity to the retired employees
of HWP. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madras dealt with
the Writ Appeals as lead cases and, by the Impugned Judgment, and
allowed the Writ Appeals as well as Writ Petitions filed by HWP. The
Impugned Judgment examined the issue under the following heads:
(i) On Interpretation of “Employee” (Section 2(e) of PG Act, 1972):
The Appellants were appointed by the Government of India, DAE.
Their appointment orders clearly stated they were governed by
“Central Civil Services Rules.” Since the Appellants held “civil
posts under the Central Government” and were governed by
the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which provide for gratuity,
they fall squarely within the exclusion clause. Therefore, they
do not come within the meaning of “employees” under Section
2(e) of the PG Act.
(ii) Inapplicability of Section 14 (Overriding Effect): Section 14
applies only to persons who first qualify as “employees” under
the PG Act. Since the retired employees were excluded at the
threshold definition stage (Section 2(e)), they never entered
the ambit of the PG Act. Consequently, Section 14 cannot be
invoked to override the CCS (Pension) Rules in their case.
Hence, a specific exclusion in the definition clause cannot be
defeated by a general overriding clause.
604 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(iii) Status of the Heavy Water Board (“HWB”): It rejected the
argument that the HWB is an industrial establishment/
autonomous body, distinct from the Central Government. It
treated HWB as a unit of the DAE of the Government of India.
It was held that, unlike a Public Sector Undertaking like NPCIL,
which is a separate corporate entity, HWB functions directly
under the Ministry. The employees are, therefore, Central
Government servants, not merely employees of an autonomous
industrial unit.
(iv) The Principle of Estoppel: The Appellants had already received
their retirement benefits, including pension and gratuity, under
the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, without protest at the time
of retirement. An employee cannot claim benefits under two
different statutes for the same purpose. Having accepted the
benefits under the specific rules applicable to government
servants, i.e., CCS Rules, they are estopped from turning
around and claiming higher benefits under a general law, i.e.,
the PG Act, which expressly excludes them.
(v) Distinguishing Precedents (The MCD Case): Distinguishing
this Court’s judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Dharam Prakash Sharma,1 it was held that the employees
were undeniably “employees” of the Corporation, and the
Corporation had merely adopted CCS Rules. Whereas in the
present case, the retired employees were originally Central
Government servants holding civil posts, which is a specific
statutory exclusion not present in the MCD (supra).
(vi) Regarding Refund: The High Court ordered that employees
who had already withdrawn the differential gratuity amounts
deposited by the Management “need not return the money” and
the Management cannot demand a refund of these amounts.
For those employees (like the retired employees in the present
Civil Appeals) who had not yet withdrawn the money, the High
Court ordered that the amounts lying in the deposit must be
returned to the Management.
8. Learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, argues that
HWP is an industrial establishment. The orders constituting HWP

1 (1998) 7 SCC 22.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 605

N. Manoharan, Etc. v. The Administrative Officer and Another

confer complete autonomy to HWP to decide on the appointment
of employees, and service conditions by which the employees are
governed. HWP, as an entity, has adopted and applied the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972. From the above circumstances, it cannot be
gainsaid that the employees of HWP fall within the exclusive definition
of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the PG Act. The absence of an
exemption notification under Section 5 is a crucial factor in determining
the applicability of the PG Act to HWP’s employees. The entities
established as government companies/public sector undertakings
have exemption notifications in their favour, or the public sector
undertaking, as a corporate body, discharges the obligation under
the PG Act. There is no exemption notification in the case at hand.
The impugned judgment fell into a serious error by distinguishing
the judgment in MCD (supra). Assuming without admitting that the
retirement benefits are paid as per CCS Rules/CCS Pension Rules,
unless it is established on all fours that the employees of HWP
squarely fall within Section 2(e) of the PG Act, denial of gratuity
under the PG Act is illegal, and the impugned judgment is liable to
be set aside.
9. Shree S.D. Sanjay, learned ASG appearing for HWP, argues that the
standing of employees of HWP vis-à-vis HWP is, in more than one
sense, a jurisdictional fact. The jurisdictional fact is appreciated and
decided on all the circumstances which bring into existence HWP,
whether as a Department of Atomic Energy or a separate corporate
entity. The employees do not state that HWP is a separate public
sector undertaking/government company with a certificate issued by
the Registrar of Companies. HWP, as per the inception document,
was constituted by the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1969.
The sequence is a Board of Management known as the Heavy
Water Projects Board, created for managing the projects of DAE
for the production of heavy water. HWP is a project of the DAE. To
sieve out HWP from its constituent department is illegal and may
go contrary to the AE Act. In response to the argument about the
functional freedom granted to HWP, it is argued that this freedom is
granted to accelerate the objectives sought through HWP projects.
The appointment orders were issued in accordance with the CCS
Rules. The department’s service rules cannot be treated as indicia
for deciding the jurisdictional fact. The appointment orders speak
in unison that CCS Rules govern the employees, and the resultant
606 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

effect is that gratuity is payable under the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972. The circumstances leading to the establishment of HWPs
render the establishment subject to exclusion under Section 2(e) of
the PG Act. The need for an exemption notification under Section
5 and the need to reply to overriding effect under Section 14 of the
PG Act depend on the Act’s applicability to the relationship between
an employer and an employee. The impugned judgment, in his
argument, has briefly summarised the position in fact and law, and
no ground exists warranting interference in the impugned judgment.
It is lastly argued that, considering the importance of the entities,
the hierarchy of establishment, command and control is decided by
the Central Government. The employees cannot claim to have the
benefit of CCS Rules, status of a Central Government employee,
while for gratuity, the benefits under the PG Act.
10. The applicability or inapplicability of the PG Act, to begin with, depends
on whether the employee comes within the inclusive definition or the
exclusive definition. The same is dependent on jurisdictional facts. In
Arun Kumar v. Union of India,2 it has been held that a jurisdictional
fact is a fact which must exist before a court, tribunal, or authority
assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one
on the existence or non-existence of which depends the jurisdiction
of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an
administrative agency’s power to act depends. If the jurisdictional fact
does not exist, the court, authority or officer cannot act. If a court or
authority wrongly assumes the existence of such a fact, the order
can be questioned by a writ of certiorari. The underlying principle is
that by erroneously assuming the existence of such a jurisdictional
fact, no authority can confer upon itself jurisdiction which it otherwise
does not possess.
11. It is axiomatic that a decision is an authority for what it decides
and not what can be logically deduced therefrom. In our view, the
decision in MCD (supra) cannot be an authority for deciding the
applicability of the PG Act to the employees of HWP. We cannot
logically also deduce the similarity of circumstances in the corporate
entity of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and an annexe of the DAE.
Therefore, the applicability is determined by the facts of the case
considered by the tribunal/court.

2 (2007) 1 SCC 732.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 607

N. Manoharan, Etc. v. The Administrative Officer and Another

12. It is relevant to notice that the amended definition deals with the first
limb of Section 2(e),3 and the second exclusionary limb is the same
in the pre- and post-amendment provisions. Construing Section 2(e),
the second limb begins with the words “but does not include” any
such person (i) who holds a post under the Central Government,
(ii) a State Government, (iii) is governed by any other Act or (iv) by
any Rules providing payment of gratuity. The exclusionary clause,
if read by applying the golden rule without a further test, excludes
employees of the Central and State Governments from the meaning
of “employee” under the PG Act. Secondly, it also excludes a person
who is governed by any other act. Thirdly, even if it is used as “or”
but not as “and”, it excludes any such person who is governed by
any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. The
provision contains the words both “means” and “does not include”.
Under interpretation of statutes, this Court has repeatedly held that
coupling the word “means” with “includes” denotes an exhaustive
definition.4 Conversely, the word “means” and “does not include”
should be read as exclusionary language that strictly excludes
the scope of the provision from certain classes. Consequently, a
person who is governed by any other Act, or governed by any Rules
providing for payment of gratuity, does not come within the ambit of
the definition of “employee” under the PG Act.
12.1 The construction of Section 2(e), as above, leads us to the
factual matrix of the case. The AE Act is not considered
exhaustively for the present purpose. Still, it is sufficient to refer

3
Pre-Amendment Post-Amendment
“employee” means any person (other than “employee” means any person (other than an
an apprentice) employed on wages, in any apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether
establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, the term such employment are express or implied,
port, railway company or shop to do any skilled, in any; kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or
semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, in connection with the work of a factory, mine,
technical or clerical work, whether the terms oilfield, plantation port, railway company, shop
of such employment are express or implied, or other establishment to which this Act applies,
and whether or not such person is employed but does not include any such person who holds
in a managerial or administrative capacity, but a post under the Central Government or a State
does· not include any such person who holds a Government and is governed by any other Act or
post under the Central Government or a State by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.”
Government and is governed by any other Act or
by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.”

4 Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P. (1989) 1 SCC 164; P. Kasilingam And Others v. P.S.G College Of
Technology And Others (1995) Supp. SCC 2 348
608 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to Section 3 of the AE Act which inter-alia empowers the Central
Government to produce, develop, use and dispose of Atomic
Energy, either by itself or through any Authority or Corporation
established by it or a Government Company, and carry out
research into any matters connected therewith. Similarly,
to manufacture or to produce any prescribed radioactive
substance or the ancillary works connected therewith, the
difference in language between Clauses (a) and (b) of Section
3 clearly demonstrate that a few of the functions/activities, the
Central Government is empowered to do by itself or through any
other authority or corporation established by it or a Government
Company, and has power to manufacture or otherwise produce
any prescribed or radioactive substance as per Clause (b).
The chart in the above paragraph demonstrates the choice
vested in the Central Government to undertake a particular
act either directly or by establishing a company/PSU.
13. Since its inception, a board has been constituted to manage the
HWPs of the DAE. The retired employees admit that HWP is not
incorporated under the Companies Act, is not recognised as a
PSU, or functions as a Government Company. In other words, the
other attributes of a separate legal entity, incorporated association,
artificial person, limited liability, common seal, perpetual succession,
and transferability of shares are not present. In substance, without
any ambiguity, the HWP is created to manage the projects of the
DAE for the production of heavy water. HWP at Tuticorin is a project
under the management of the Heavy Water Projects Board of the
DAE, and cannot, by sieving, separate itself from being an ancillary
or adjunct of the DAE. For the limited purpose of gratuity, the larger
and comprehensive establishment of atomic energy facilities by the
Central Government is not replaced with a very narrow construction
of the functional freedom given to the Heavy Water Projects Board or
individual Heavy Water Plants. The jurisdictional fact, on appreciation,
leads us to the conclusion that HWP is an adjunct or ancillary
operating through the Heavy Water Projects Board of the DAE. On
examination of constitution, establishment, and continuation, we notice
the character of HWP as an adjunct of the Department of Atomic
Energy, and by choice, we are not adverting to the appointment
orders or any other circulars for deciding the jurisdictional fact of
“employees”. Therefore, the employees fall within the exclusionary
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 609

N. Manoharan, Etc. v. The Administrative Officer and Another

clause of Section 2(e) of the PG Act. The result of such exclusion is
that Sections 5 and 14 are not attracted in deciding on the applicability
of the PG Act to the employees of HWP.
14. For the above reasons, we are in agreement with the order impugned,
and the Civil Appeals fail and are dismissed. Pending applications,
if any, stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Civil Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey