- (1.) The petitioner's claim for quashing of the order of termination issued by the 2 nd respondent viz Stock Holding Corporation of India on 26.10.2009 is on the ground that the order was passed without following the procedure established by law and violating the principles of natural justice. I do not feel constrained to go into the factual issues, for, the issue raised is at the instance of an Assistant Manager in the 2 nd respondent - Company registered under the Company Act. The petitioner's challenge is to the order of termination and for a direction for reinstatement. Even at first blush, it has to be observed that the prayer involving contract of personal service in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is legally suspect. It is too well laid down a proposition of law as held by the Supreme Court in several decisions that an enforcement of contract of service is admissible only under three situations. (i) A public service, which is protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (ii) The termination of service that is protected under a Labour legislation providing for the relief of reinstatement; and (iii) When the termination is in violation of the statutory regulations and rules from the employment in a Corporation, which is established by a specific legislation of the Parliament or the State Legislature. Reference may be had to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Pushpa Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. Gangotri Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd., 2012 4 SCC 751.
(2.) The petitioner's attempt is to show that the 2 nd respondent is a Company, which is a Central Record Keeping Agency appointed by the Government of India and the official website of the Company carries the National emblem. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, would show the State interest which is involved and, therefore, all the trappings of Government service must be incorporated into the service with the 2 nd respondent- Company.
(3.) The learned counsel would also refer to the decision in Zee Telefilms Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, 2005 4 SCC 649 where the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that a private body, which is allowed to discharge public duty or positive obligation of public nature and which is allowed to perform regulatory and controlling functions and activities which would be otherwise the job of the government would still be treated as an instrumentality of the State. The filing of the writ petition itself is not the issue. The poser is whether an enforcement of contract of service through the writ petition is possible. I am not raising the issue that the respondents could not be treated as an instrumentality of State or that a writ petition cannot filed. On the other hand, I would hold the prayer for treating the termination of service as bad and seeking for reinstatement shall be impermissible in the present case. The service is not regulated through statutory service conditions the petitioner was of a managerial cadre in a Company to whom the benefit of labour law cannot be applied and the service of the petitioner is not civil service.;