- (1.) These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Calcutta dated 30.1.2002 and 24.12.2002 in FMA No. 301/2001, CO. 2038/1993, WP. Nos. 778/1992, 2613, 2798 & 3169/2000, 1109/1998 and 1739/1996, by which the Calcutta High Court by a majority decision held that thePage 2 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. appellant, is a State within the purview of 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Constitution'), and is thus, amenable to writ jurisdiction.
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: A. The appellant is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The shares of the appellant company were originally held by Indo-Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd., Life Insurance Corporation, Unit Trust of India, General Insurance Corporation and its subsidiaries, Nationalised Banks and also by the public. Subsequently, in 2001 its majority equity shares, i.e. 61.8% of its shareholding, which was held by IBP Co. Ltd., was transferred to Balmer Lawrie Investments Ltd. (BLIL), a Govt. company in which 59% shares are held by the government. B. The appellant company carries on business in diverse fields through various Strategic Business Units (SBUs). None of these SBUs have monopoly in any business. The said SBUs are involved in the manufacturing of packing materials, i.e. steel drums and LPG cylinders, grease and lubricants. They also provide air freight services, ocean freight services, and project cargo management. They operate under a broader segment classified as 'Logistic Services', providing space and scope for segregation, storage and aggregation of containerized cargo, i.e. an infrastructural service carried on outside the port premises for handling, loading/unloading and storage of containerized import, as well as export cargo. The appellant company also deals with leather chemicals and tea blending and packaging. C. The respondents-employees joined the services of the company at different times. However, for the purpose of deciding this case it would be convenient to take up the facts presented by respondent, Partha Sarathi Sen Roy. The said respondent joined the appellant company in May 1975 as a Management Trainee, and was later on confirmed vide order dated 1.6.1976 as an officer in Grade-III, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of confirmation w.e.f. 20.5.1976. He had previously worked in different branches of the company in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates etc. as an Accountant-cumAdministrative Officer. His services were terminated vide order dated 27.2.1981, in view of Clause 11(a) of the letter of appointment which provided that the company would have a right, which would be exercised at its sole discretion, to terminate the services of such employees by giving them three calendar months' notice in writing, without assigning any reason for such decision. The respondent challenged the said termination order by filing writ petition (C.R. No. 1562 (W) of 1981) in the High Court of Calcutta, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing that the said termination order be quashed. D. The appellant company contested the said writ petition contending that it was not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore was not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The terms and conditions of contractual rights and obligations could therefore, not be enforced through writ jurisdiction. The matter was decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 19.12.2000, holding that the appellant was neither a State, nor any other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and thus the writ petition itself was not maintainable. E. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal (FMA. No. 301/2001), against the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. However, in the meantime, another writ petition No. 778/1992 was decided by another learned Single Judge of the same High Court, holding that the appellant was infact a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Thus, the appellant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order dated 27.3.2001, and the matters were heard together by a Division Bench. Both the Judges delivered their judgment on 30.1.2002 taking different views on the aforesaid issue. The matter was referred to a third Hon'ble Judge, who vide judgment and order dated 24.12.2002, held the appellant to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and directed that the matter be placed before an appropriate bench for decision of the writ petitions on merits. Hence, these appeals.
(3.) Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, has submitted that the appellant company cannot be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, or any other authority for that matter, as there is no deep and pervasive control exercised by the government over the company, though certain financial aid was given by it for specific purposes. The government however, does not have control over the day-to-day functioning of the company. Merely because the appellant company is a subsidiary of a government company, and is itself a government company, the same would not make the appellant company fall within the purview of the word 'State' as intended by Article 12 of the Constitution. Moreover, it does not carry out any public function which could render it as, 'any other authority', for the purposes of Article 226 of the Constitution. It also does not have any kind of monopoly over its business, in fact, it carries on a variety of business activities and faces competition from all the other industries that operate in the same fields as it does. The terms of employment therefore, cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction. Thus, the only remedy available to the respondent was to file a suit for damages. The appeals deserve to be allowed.;