Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THREE writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 6729, 8721 and 10021 of 2012, have been filed by the employees working with the Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Limited (for short, 'the Company'). Facts of CWP No. 6729 of 2012 The petitioner herein has impugned the order dated 10.4.2012 vide which his services have been terminated. The petitioner joined service with the respondent -Company on 15.7.1998 as Deputy Manager (Purchase) and was confirmed on the post. The termination of services of the petitioner has been challenged inter -alia on the allegations of malafide and without issuing any charge -sheet or show cause notice referring to a clause in the appointment letter in terms of which services of an employee can be terminated merely by giving one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. Facts of CWP No. 8721 of 2012
(2.) THE petitioner herein is working as Senior General Manager (Projects) since 1993. He has impugned his transfer as Senior General Manager (Electrical) at the plant of the company at Naya Nangal. The preliminary issue sought to be raised by the petitioner impugning his transfer is that he is an Engineering Graduate. He has been working in Commercial, Projects and Materials and Administration, etc. He is not an expert in Electrical side. He has been made to work and report to a person who has been appointed recently in the Company. His selection was made by a Committee of which the petitioner was one of the members. This is 7th transfer of the petitioner in last 11 months. Facts of CWP No. 10021 of 2012 The petitioner herein has challenged his transfer from Head office Chandigarh to Naya Nangal, IT Department alleging malafide and raising a grievance that as a result of his transfer, he was humiliated and made to work under his juniors, who were given undue promotions, though had been appointed after the petitioner.
(3.) AS the petitioners in the present writ petitions impugned the action taken by the respondent -Company, a preliminary objection was raised by counsel for the respondent -Company regarding maintainability of the writ petitions claiming that the respondent -Company cannot be termed as a State or any other authority amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court. Arguments;