Dipak Prakas Kundu, J. - (1.) An Order of Termination dated February 16, 1990 (Annexure 'D' of writ petition) terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.03.90 from the service of West Bengal Tea Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has been challenged in this writ proceeding.
(2.) The Corporation is a Government of West Bengal undertaking. In the writ petition; in Paragraph 3, it has been stated that all the shares of the Corporation are owned by the State Government. It has been stated that the Corporation is under the direct control of the Commerce and Industry Department, Government of West Bengal and the Departmental Secretary is an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation. It has been stated that the Corporation Is a state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In Paragraph 4 of the writ petition it has been stated that the State Government is directly involved with the financial liability of the Corporation and all initial capital investment was made by the State Government. It has been stated that the functions, procedure, disbursement of money, employment of recruits and all incidental matters relating to the management of tea gardens under the Corporation are consonance with the normal Government rules and regulations. It has been stated that the corporation was established by the State Government with the sole purpose to take over the management and ownership of the sick tea gardens not only to provide employment to the innumerable employees of the State Government but also to generate necessary funds for the Corporation.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the Corporation submitted that an affidavit in-opposition was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 but the said affidavit was not available in the record of the case. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 has filed a xerox copy of the affidavit-in-opposition which was filed on behalf of the Corporation. For the proper adjudication of the matter the said xerox copy of the affidavit-in-opposition has been accepted by the Court and has been treated as original. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has no objection for accepting the said xerox copy of the affidavit in opposition.;