Rakesh Kumar Bhatia vs Indian Potash Limited and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent-Indian Potash Limited is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that 70% of the share holdings of the respondent-Company is held by the Cooperative Sector and such Cooperative Sector is none else but the functionaries of the State Government and 13% of the share holdings is held by Public Sector Companies. It is also argued that the Government of India has administrative as well as financial control over the working and functioning of the respondent. It is also contended that the respondent is discharging public duties and thus it is amenable to the writ petition of this Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner inter alia relies upon B.S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute and Others, , Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, , The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. The Mysore Paper Mills Officers'' Association and Another, , Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Others Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others, , CSIR Scientific Workers Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. : (2003)9SCC289 and Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has pointed out that 70.22% of shares is held by the Cooperative Sector, 20.54% of shares is held by Public Sector Companies and 9.24% shares are held by the Private Companies and individuals. The nature of the shareholders of the respondent cannot determine its nature as that a State within meaning of Article 12 as the respondent-Company is a separate entity. It is argued that there is no administrative or financial control of the Government of India over the respondent-Company nor the said Company discharging any public duties. Apart from the other judgments, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Binny Ltd. and Another Vs. V. Sadasivan and Others, wherein after considering the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, it has been held that decision of the employer to terminate the services of their employees cannot be said to have any element of public policy. The case is purely governed by the contract of employment between the employees and the employer and it is not appropriate to construe those contracts as opposed to the principles of public policy. It was further held that in contractual matters even in respect of public bodies, the principles of judicial review have got limited application. Relying upon the said judgment, Madhya Pradesh High Court in CWP No. 2385 of 2002, Harendra Jha v. Union of India and Ors. has dismissed the writ petition against the respondent-Company as not maintainable.

The question whether the respondent is a State within the meaning of Article 12 or the writ petition would be maintainable against the said Company in respect of termination of its employees discharging the managerial functions requires consideration.

Admitted.

However, we do not find any justification to continue with the interim order dated 30-12-2007. The same is vacated as the stay of termination in fact grants the relief claimed in the writ petition by virtue of the interim order.