Jagdish Bhalla, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 29.10.1998, by which writ petition was allowed, appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.) THE writ petition was filed by the petitioner -non -appellant against the order of termination dated 2.9.1995. The challenge to the aforesaid order of termination was made being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as provisions of Indian Contract Act. The appellant herein raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition as appellant company does not fall within the definition of 'state' or its agency as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge did not accept the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and taking note of the factual as well as legal aspect of the matter, allowed the writ petition whereby termination order was set aside with consequential relief of reinstatement with back wages, till petitioner attains age of superannuation.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that there are two grounds to challenge the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. It is firstly urged that it is a case of contract between a private company and its workman thus writ of mandamus cannot be issued in regard to such contractual matters. Elaborating the argument on the aforesaid issue, it is stated that appellant company is not a company or a public undertaking controlled, managed and financed by the government thus for a contractual matter between a private company and its workman should not have been entertained in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Binny Ltd. and Anr. v. V. Sadasivan and Ors. : (2005) 6 SCC 657 has been given. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly : (1986) 3 SCC 156 and also the judgment in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress : 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 600 has no application to a private company. The Hon'ble Apex Court made differentiation between a public company/undertaking and private company while deciding the case in Binny Ltd. (supra).;