RADHAKRISHNA Vs. MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) a rather unusual situation has arisen in this group of writ petitions and I have heard learned counsel appearing on both sides with regard to the aspect of procedural proprieties that arise for determination. Briefly stated, the present petitioners approached this court through this group of petitions on a charge that the respondent-company, the Mysore sugar company limited, mandya which had employed them in various capacities had sought to abruptly terminate their services. They contend that they were attached basically to various duties in relation to the then chairman and that the company contended that their tenure of employment was co-extensive with the term of office of that officer and that consequently, their services were being terminated. The petitioners on the other hand relied on various Provisions of law but basically, approached this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction on the ground that the action was both arbitrary and illegal. They also contended that the company had several vacancies into which they could be suitably absorbed apart from which, that appropriate sanction had been asked for from the government and that in this background, the abrupt termination is required to be stopped. the petitioners having made out a prima facie case for intervention an ad interim order was passed restraining the respondents from relieving them of their duties.

(2.) shortly thereafter, the company through its learned counsel not only filed its replies to the proceedings but also applied for vacating the interim orders. At that stage, the petitioners learned counsel made a serious grievance of the fact that the interim orders had not been complied within letter and spirit whereupon, the company's learned counsel clarified that the company has no intention whatsoever to show the slightest disrespect to judicial orders and therefore, that all the petitioners were being permitted to continue with the company even though there were no job functions that could be given to them and that the company would do this until the court heard their applications for vacating the interim orders.

(3.) the basic submission, quite apart from the merits of the case, that was canvassed on behalf of the respondent-company is with regard to the maintainability of this group of petitions. these are petitions filed under article 226 of the constitution and learned counsel for the respondents submitted by way of preliminary objection, which he has pressed very strongly, that the institution of these proceedings is not permissible in law because the respondent-company is not an authority or instrumentality of state within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution. Learned counsel relied on a division bench decision of this very court in the case of p.m. machaiah v Mysore sugar company limited and another, wherein, after a detailed examination of various aspects that were argued in that matter, the. Division bench conclusively held that the respondent-company cannot be categorised either as an authority or instrumentality of "state and that therefore, a writ petition is not maintainable against the company. In view of the fact that the division ben.ch judgment still holds the field and more so since it pertains to the very company which we are concerned within the present set of petitions, learned counsel submitted that the present proceedings cannot be continued and will have to be dismissed. Necessarily, he contended'the interim orders were also to be vacated.