S.A. Bobde, J.@mdashHeard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. This appeal is preferred against judgment dated 04.05.2009, by which the learned Single Judge has held that the appropriate Government in respect of the Appellants is the State Government and, therefore, the Labour Court and Industrial Court have jurisdiction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (For short "MRTU & PULP Act") to entertain the dispute against the Appellants. The Respondents are agricultural labourers, who were employed for agricultural work in the farm of the Appellant Nos. 2 National Research Centre For Citrus (For short "NRCC"), which body is under the administrative and financial control of Appellant No. 1 i.e. ICAR. The Respondents challenged the termination of their services in a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act before the Labour Court. This Act is, admittedly, applicable to the industries in relation to which the appropriate Government is the State Government. In fact, the Appellants, in the complaint alleged that though the NRCC is an undertaking functioning under the authority of the Central Government, the appropriate Government is the State Government because the office of the NRCC is located at Nagpur. The Appellants resisted the complaint on the ground that the appropriate Government in respect of the Appellants is the Central Government and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. They also contended that there was no employer employee relationship between the Appellants and the Respondents since the Respondents were engaged by a Contractor i.e. Vidarbha Security and Consultancy Services, Nagpur for doing agricultural work in their farm. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the Appellants in relation to the appropriate Government and dismissed the complaints of the Respondents. The revision applications filed by the Respondents were also dismissed by the Industrial Court.
3. The Respondents challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court by filing Writ Petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge held that the AppellantICAR is not an industry carried out by or under the authority of the Central Government and, therefore, the appropriate Government in relation to the ICAR is not the Central Government. Accordingly, the Industrial Court and Labour Court had jurisdiction to deal with the complaints under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act. Hence, this appeal.
4. Section 2 of the MRTU & PULP Act makes the Act applicable to industries in relation to which the appropriate Government is the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the industries to which the Bombay Industrial Relations Act applies. The provision, to the extent it is relevant, reads as follows:
2. Extent, commencement and application.
(1) This Act extends to the whole of the State of Maharashtra.
(2) ....
(3) Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, this Act shall apply to the industries to which the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bom XI of 1947), for the time being applies, and also to any industry as defined in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), and the State Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning such industry is the appropriate Government under that Act.
This position, when read with Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 make the Act applicable to all individual disputes concerning any industry in relation to which the appropriate Government is the State Government. The Industrial Disputes Act defines appropriate Government as the Central Government in relation to industrial dispute in any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government and those specified therein and in relation to all other industries, including those set up by the State Government, the State Government. The said provision, as amended by the Act No. 24 of 2010, reads as under:
2. In the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in Section 2,
(i) in Clause (a),
(a) in subclause (i), for the words "major port, the Central Government, and", the words "major port, any company in which not less than fiftyone per cent, of the paidup share capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not being a corporation referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by Parliament, or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government and" shall be substituted;
(b) for Subclause (ii), the following subclause shall be substituted, namely:
(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, including the State public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State Government, the State Government:
Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor and the contract labour employed through the contractor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose, the appropriate Government shall be the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, which has control over such industrial establishment.
It is the contention of the Appellants that the ICAR is an industry in relation to which the appropriate Government is Central Government and, therefore, vide Section 2 above, the Act has no application. There is no dispute between the parties that the ICAR and NRCC are industries. Thus, the character of and the manner in which the ICAR functions assume importance. The ICAR is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is wholly financed by the Government of India. At its inception, the taxing power of the State was invoked to make it financially viable. After independence, the Research Institutes set up by the Government of India were transferred to the ICAR and the ICAR has set up National Bureaux, National Research Centres, Project Directorates and various Institutes like Crop Sciences, Horticulture, Soils, Agronomy and Agroforestry, Animal Sciences, Fisheries, Agricultural Engineering and Technology and also Training Institutes, throughout the length and breadth of the country. The NRCC is as one such institute set up for research in Citrus fruits, initially set up under the administrative control of the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore and later as an independent unit of the ICAR with its own Director.
5. The origin of the ICAR and its development into its present position as a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not in dispute. The history and present character of the ICAR is set out in great detail in the judgment of the Supreme Court in
10. Apart from the criteria devised by the judicial dicta the very birth and its continued existence over half a century and its present position would leave no one in doubt that ICAR is almost an inseparable adjunct of the Government of India having an outward form of being a Society, it could be styled as a Society set up by the State and, therefore, would be an instrumentality of the State.
11. ICAR started as a Department of the Government of India having an office in the Secretariat even though it was a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It was wholly financed by the Government of India. Its budget was voted upon as part of the expenses incurred in the Ministry of Agriculture. Even when its status underwent a change, it was declared as an attached office of the Government of India. The control of the Government of India permeates through all its activities and it is the body to which the Government of India transferred Research Institutes set up by it. In order to make it financially viable, a cess was levied meaning thereby that the taxation power of the State was invoked, and the proceeds of the tax were to be handed over to ICAR for its use. At no stage, the control of the Government of India even financed and since its inception it was set up to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Agriculture. In our opinion, this by itself is sufficient to make it an instrumentality of the State.
6. Mr. Atrey, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, submitted that the issue; whether functioning of the ICAR as an Industry is carried out by or under the authority of the Central Government; is substantially concluded by virtue of the fact that it has been held to be an instrumentality of the State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Etc. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. Etc. 2001 3 CLR 349, where the Supreme Court observed that the Government Companies, Corporation, Societies, which are instrumentalities of the Government, must be subjected to the same limitations in the field of public law as the Government itself does not lead to inference that they become agents of the Central or the State Government for all purposes so as to bind the State Government for all their acts, liabilities and obligations under the various laws. The Supreme Court further observed that; to hold that the Central Government is an appropriate Government in relation to a workman, the court must be satisfied that the industry in question is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. Further, the Supreme Court, in para 39 observed as under:
39.... Such an authority may be conferred, either by a Statute or by virtue of relationship of principal and agent or delegation of power. Where the authority, to carry on an industry for or on behalf of the Central Government is conferred on the Government company, undertaking by the Statute under which it is created, no further question arises. But, if it is not so, the question that arises is whether there is any conferment of authority on the Government company/any undertaking by the Central Government to carry on the Industry in question. This is a question of fact and has to be ascertained on the facts and in the circumstances of each case.
7. It is, therefore, necessary to enquire into whether the ICAR functions under the authority of the Central Government. The word "authority" must be construed in the sense of a legal power given by one to another to do an act and the term "under the authority of" must be construed as pursuant to the authority, such as in the case of an agent pursuant to the authority of a Principal, vide
I. Society
3. The office of the Society shall be situated at the Headquarters of the Government of India.
The membership of the society is described in Rule 4 of the Rules and Bye Laws, which is as follows:
4. The Society shall have the following members:
(i) Ministerincharge of the portfolio of Agriculture in the Union CabinetPresident of the Society.
(ii) Minister of State in the Union Ministry of Agriculture dealing with the Indian Council of Agricultural ResearchVicePresident.
(iii) Union Ministers holding charge of Finance, Planning, Science & Technology. Education and Commerce (in case the Prime Minister is holding any of these portfolios, the Minister of State in the Ministry/ Department concerned).
(iv) Other Ministers in the Union Ministry of Agriculture.
(v) Ministers in the State incharge of Agriculture/Animal Husbandry/ Fisheries.
(vi) Member, Planning Commission, incharge Agriculture.
(vii) Six members of Parliament four elected by Lok Sabha and two elected by Rajya Sabha.
(viii) DirectorGeneral, Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
(ix) All Secretaries in the Ministry of Agriculture.
(x) Secretary, Planning Commission.
(xi) Chairman, University Grants Commission.
(xii) Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (or Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, if nominated by the Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission).
(xiii) Member, Finance (Secretary/Additional Secretary) in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
(xiv) Four vice Chancellors of Agricultural Universities, nominated by the President.
(xv) Five technical representatives, namely Agricultural commissioner, Horticultural Commissioner, Animal Husbandry Commissioner, Fisheries Development Commissioner, from the Union Ministry of Agricultural and Inspector General of Forests, Government of India.
(xvi) Fifteen scientists from within and outside the Council including one from the Indian Council of Medical Research, nominated by the President.
(xvii) Three representatives of commerce and industry, nominated by the President.
(xviii) One farmer from each region of the country as mentioned in Rule 60 (a) and four representatives of rural interests, nominated by the President.
(xix) Four Directors of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research Institutes, nominated by the President.
(xx) Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Member Secretary.
The representation may be by name or by designations, as may be appropriate provided that the membership of the Society may be changed by the Government of India from time to time.
8. Rule 16 of the Rules and Bye Laws subjects the powers of the Society to restriction, imposition by the Government of India and subject to its guidelines is as follows:
II. Authorities of the Society:
The following shall be the authorities of the Society:
13. ....
14. ....
15. ....
16. The Society shall have, subject to such restrictions as the Government of India may impose and subject to such guidelines as the Government of India may issue from time to time in this behalf, full authority to perform all acts and issue such directions as may be considered necessary, incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects enunciated in the Memorandum of Association of the Society.
Also, it is necessary to see the powers and functions of the Director General, under Rule 22 of the Rules, which are as under:
V. DirectorGeneral
22.(a) Subject to any order that may be passed by the Government of India, the President, the Vice President and decisions of the Governing Body, the Director General as the Principal Executive Officer of the Society shall be responsible for:
i) the proper administration of the affairs and funds of the Society.
ii) prescribing the duties of all employees of the Council.
iii) exercising supervision and disciplinary control over the work and conduct of all employees of the Council.
iv) coordinating and exercising general supervision over all research activities in agriculture and animal husbandry and other activities of the Council, and v) advising the Government of India, State Governments and the Administrations of the Union Territories on all matters connected with agriculture and animal husbandry referred to him.
(b) Subject to these Rules and ByeLaws, the DirectorGeneral shall, in respect of matters under his charge, have the same powers as a Secretary to the Government of India.
(c) The DirectorGeneral may, in writing, delegate such of his powers as he may consider necessary to any officer of the Council.
The composition of Governing Body of the ICAR is described in Rule 35, which reads as follows:
IX. Governing Body
35. The Governing Body shall have the following members of the Society:
i) DirectorGeneral..... Chairman.
ii) Member, Finance.
iii) Secretary, Planning Commission.
iv) Secretary, Agriculture.
v) Chairman, University Grants Commission.
vi) Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (or Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, if nominated by the Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission)
vii) Four Scientists including one Management Expert, who are not employees of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research nominated by the President.
viii) Three Vice Chancellors of Agricultural Universities nominated by the President.
ix) Three Members of Parliament Two from Lok Sabha and one from Rajya Sabha nominated by the President.
x) Three farmers/representatives of rural areas nominated by the President.
xi) Three Directors of Research Institutes of the Council nominated by the President.
xii) Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Member Secretary.
Note:1) One of the Secretaries or Additional Secretaries in the Ministry of Finance will be Member, Finance for financial matters concerning the Council. He shall be nominated by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
2) The membership of the Governing Body shall be regulated mutatis mutandis in accordance with the provisions of Rules 6 to 11 above.
Rule 38 (a) of the Rules deals with the powers of the Governing Body. It restricts the exercise of executive and financial powers of the Society subject nevertheless to such special limitation as Government of India may from time to time impose. Rule 38(a) reads as follows:
38(a)The Governing Body shall exercise all executive and financial powers of the Society including those vested in or conferred or to be conferred on it by or under any statute subject nevertheless in respect of expenditure of such limitations as the Government of India from time to time may impose.
Rule 40 of the Rules, deals with the power to frame, amend or repeal byelaws reads as follows:
40. Subject to the provisions of these Rules and with the approval of the Government of India, the Governing Body shall have the power to frame amend or repeal byelaws for the administration and management of the affairs and funds of the Society and in particular to provide for the following matters.
i) preparation and sanction of budget estimates, sanctioning expenditure, execution of contracts, investment of funds of the Society, purchase sale or change of such investments and maintenance of accounts and their audit.
ii) procedure for recruitment and training, examination, assessment, clearance or probation, confirmation and promotion of personnel to and in the service of the Council.
iii) terms and tenures of appointments and assignments, emoluments, allowances, rules of discipline and other conditions of service of the employees of the Council.
iv) terms and conditions governing:
a) the grant of scholarships, fellowships etc.
b) deputations within the country and abroad.
c) grants in aid for research schemes and projects, and
d) establishment of research centres.
v) such other matters as may be necessary or incidental to the administration of the affairs and funds of the Society.
Rule 80 of the Rules deals with the provision for Annual Report of the Society. Rule 80 is reproduced as under:
80. An annual Report of the proceedings of the Society and all work undertaken during the year shall be prepared by the Governing body for the information of the members of the Society alongwith the Auditor''s report thereon shall be placed before the Society at its Annual Central Meeting and also on the table of the Houses of Parliament.
Having regard to the intent and purport of the Rules, we find that the Central Government exercises sufficient authority and power in the actual functioning of the ICAR so as to warrant the inference that the ICAR functions under the authority of the Central Government. The composition of the society, the limitations on the exercise of the powers of the society subject to guidelines issued by the Government of India and restriction on the exercise of financial powers strongly suggests the inference that the ICAR functions under the authority of the Central Government within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As the dynamics of the functioning goes, the Members of the Society are mainly Ministers in the Central Government, Members of Parliament, Secretaries in the various Central Government Departments, Chairman and Members of Various Commissions, such as Planning Commission, University Grants Commission, Atomic Energy Commission. The ICAR has full authority to perform all its acts, incidental and conducive to attainment of objects of the society subject to guidelines issued by the Government of India and to such restrictions as the Government of India may impose vide Rule 16. The responsibility is conferred by the Rules and ByeLaws of the ICAR on the President, Vice President and Director General subject to any order that may be passed by Government of India vide Rule 12A. The Director General is conferred with the same powers as a Secretary to the Government of India. The Governing Body comprises of the members, who are mainly taken from the Government or Government agencies such as the Secretary, Planning Commission; Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture; Chairman, University Grants Commission; Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission; three members of the Parliament, Directors of Research Institutes of the ICAR, Secretary or Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Finance etc. vide Rule 35. All the executive and financial powers of society can be exercised subject to limitations imposed by Government of India, Parliament, vide Rule 38A of the Rules. Even, the power to amend bye laws is subject to the provision of the Government of India. The annual report and the proceedings also are tabled in both the Houses of Parliament and Society can change its name only with the approval of the Government of India.
9. Thus, all these factors, such as; the Society i.e. ICAR though a separately registered body, is predominantly governmental in its composition and, therefore, in its character and that its functioning is subjected to the limitations and directions imposed and issued by the Government of India lead to the conclusion that it is a society which is set up by, and functions under the authority of the Government of India.
10. It is significant to note that considering the matter negatively, there is nothing in the composition, character or functioning of the ICAR which suggests any relationship to the State Government. It is neither a State public sector undertaking nor an autonomous body owned or conducted by the State Government vide Section 2(9)(ii). It is, therefore, not possible to take a view that the State Government is appropriate Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning the ICAR. The ICAR mainly conducts its activities by reason of the fact that it was set up by the Central Government and even today is guided and restricted by the authority of the Central Government, throughout the country.
11. Mr. Mohokar, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, however, strongly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union v. Tata Memorial Centre and Anr. 1010 3 CLR 151 where the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the appropriate Government in relation to the Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai is the State Government and not the Central Government even though initially the hospital and trust were maintained from the grants made available from time to time by the Central Government and the Government of Bombay. According to Mr. Mohokar, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the Supreme Court came to this conclusion even though the Constitution of the Council of the society, which is also registered under the Societies Registration Act, shows that some of the members were appointed by the Government of India. We find that there is a marked difference between the circumstances of the case of the Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai whose function and area of operation is restricted to the city of Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra and the present case. On the contrary, the present case deals with the case of ICAR, which has large number of Institutes and Research Centres established in all parts of the country. There is no doubt that the mere fact that the Ministers appoint the members and Directors of the Corporation and are entitled to give directions, which are binding on the Directors and to supervise over the conduct of the business of the Corporation, does not render the Corporation as an agent of the Government as observed in paragraph 22 of the judgment. It is equally important to note the subsequent observations, which reads as under:
22.... Such an inference that the corporation is the agent of the Government may be drawn where it is performing in substance governmental and non commercial functions.(of London County Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association v. Nocholos) (1948) 2 ALL E.R. 432.
12. We are satisfied from the undisputed facts pertaining to the character, composition and functioning of the ICAR that its function is purely non commercial having regard to the objects, for which the ICAR is established. The of the ICAR are given in Rule 2 of the Rules. They are as follows:
2. The objects for which the Indian Council of Agricultural Research is established are:
(a) To undertake, aid, promote, and coordinate agricultural and animal husbandry education, research and its application in practice, development and marketing in India and its Protectorates and any other areas in or in relation to which the Government of India has an exercises any jurisdiction by treaty, agreement, grant usage, sufferance or other lawful means by all means calculated to increase secure its adoption in every day practice.
(b) To act as a clearing house of information not only in regard to research but also in regard to agricultural and veterinary matters generally.
(c) For the purposes of the Society to draw and accept and make and endorse discount and negotiate Government of India and other promissory notes, bills of exchange, cheques or other negotiable instruments.
(d) To invest the funds of, or money entrusted to, the Society upon such securities or in such manner as may from time to time be determined by the Governing Body and from time to time to sell or transpose such investments.
(e) To purchase, take on lease, accept as a gift or otherwise acquire, any land or building, where situate in India which may be necessary or convenient for the Society.
(f) To construct or alter any building which may be necessary for the Society.
(g) To sell, lease exchange an otherwise transfer all or any portion of the properties of the Society.
(h) To establish and maintain a research and reference library in pursuance of the objects of the Society with reading and writing rooms and to furnish the same with books, reviews, magazines, newspapers and other publications.
(i) To do all to her such things as the Society may consider necessary, incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects.
13. It is also necessary to bear in mind the context in which meaning of the term "appropriate Government" falls for consideration of the Court. The Industrial Disputes Act and certain other Acts such as MRTU & PULP Act, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, etc. have made elaborate provisions for settlement of industrial disputes. Industrial disputes have an impact on several aspects of society, which are relevant for governance, such as law and order in a particular industrial unit, law and order in the entire industry, unrest in the society caused by disruptions of production and unemployment. It is well known that industrial disputes also have an impact on the economy and trade etc. It is, therefore, necessary for the Government, under whose broad jurisdiction a particular industry functions, to be aware of the industrial dispute, which affect its functioning and policies and take steps for their resolution. Thus, Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, empowers the appropriate Government to refer a dispute to appropriate authority such as Boards, Courts or Tribunals where it is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. It, therefore, stands to reason that appropriate Government in respect of the industrial dispute, which arose in an industry, which is functioning throughout the country should be the Central Government and not the various State Governments, which are likely to take their own particular view of the industrial dispute. It would, therefore, be appropriate to hold that where an industry is carried on in several States on national level and functions under the broad authority of the Central Government and functions in such a way that it affects the Central Government, the appropriate Government must be held to be the Central Government.
14. Indeed, it cannot also be said that a welfare State is not entitled to undertake research, which is absolutely imperative for the progress of a nation and that undertaking such research makes the function non governmental. We are thus, of the view that the ICAR is an "Industry" which is carried on under the authority of the Central Government and the "appropriate Government" in relation to such an industry is the "Central Government". We are not in agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge that merely because the research activity is carried on by the ICAR is not a core governance function, the activity itself cannot be said to be carried on under the authority of the Central Government.
15. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon on the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and Ors., (supra). In that case it was held that a commercial Corporation acting on its own behalf even though it is controlled wholly or partially by a Government department and though a Minister appoints Members or Directors of the Corporation, cannot be presumed to be a servant or agent of the State.
In the present case, the ICAR, which is an independent society governed by its own governing body and rules, cannot be held to be a society functioning under the authority of the Central Government.
There is also no doubt that in the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and Ors., (supra), the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the entire share capital of the Company was contributed by the Central Government and the fact that all its shares are held by the President and certain officers of the Central Government, does not make any difference since the Company and shareholders are distinct entities and, therefore, it cannot be said to be an agent either of the President or the Central Government. The statement on behalf of the Respondents, however, overlooks a crucial difference between a Government company and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Unlike a company, a society does not have an independent personality distinct from its shareholders. The personality of a society is hardly distinguishable from its members. It is not a body corporate or juristic person.
16. For proper adjudication of this crucial point, it is also necessary to consider a judgment the Supreme Court in
23. Although admittedly, a registered society is endowed with an existence separate from that of its members of certain purposes, that is not to say that it is a legal person fro the purposes of Sections 223 and 236 of the Act. Whereas a company can be regarded as having a complete legal personality, the same is not possible for a society, whose existence is closely connected, and even contingent, upon the persons who originally formed it. Inasmuch as a company enjoys an identify distinct from its original shareholders, whereas the society is undistinguishable, in some aspects, from its own members, that would qualify as a material distinction, which prevents societies from obtaining Letters of Administration.
The Supreme Court further pointed out that the property of a Society vests in the Government body or society and it can be sued in the name of the President, Chairman of the said trust as may be determined by rules and regulations. It may also be noted that suits instituted against societies do not abate upon the death etc. of the person joined in the suit but continued in the name of or against the successor of such a person, thus demonstrating the units of the identity of the society and its mechanism vide Section 7. When this distinction is borne in mind and applied to the present case, it would appear that the ICAR, which is wholly comprised of governmental functionaries or their nominees has no independent existence apart from such members, who constitute it and the function of such members is controlled and guided by the Central Government and, therefore, in the present case, it is not possible to apply the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and Ors.;(supra).
In these circumstances, we find ourselves unable to relieve the Respondents of their plight in having approached the wrong Court.
17. In this view of the matter, judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1434/1997 dated 17.04.2009 is hereby set aside and the complaints filed by the Respondents are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
At this stage, Mr. Mohokar, the learned Counsel for Respondents, prays for stay of this order. However, we do not see any reason to grant stay. The request is, therefore, rejected.
