The matter was referred to a third Honble 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.
However, in the meantime, another writ petition No.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are The appellant is a public limited companypany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
Hence, these appeals.
None of these SBUs have monopoly in any business.
companypany in which 59 shares are held by the government.
The appellant companypany companytested the said writ petition companytending that it was number an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore was number amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The appellant companypany also deals with leather chemicals and tea blending and packaging.
The appellant companypany and IBP Company Limited, had a companymon Chairman.
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.
They also provide air freight services, ocean freight services, and project cargo management.
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, number any other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and thus the writ petition itself was number maintainable.
The respondent challenged the said termination order by filing writ petition C.R. No.
The terms and companyditions of companytractual rights and obligations companyld therefore, number be enforced through writ jurisdiction.
The companypany has also promoted the use of Hindi language in the companyrse of official work, in companysonance with the circulars guidelines that have been issued by the Government of India.
However, for the purpose of deciding this case it would be companyvenient to take up the facts presented by respondent, Partha Sarathi Sen Roy.
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.
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 companypany 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 numberice in writing, without assigning any reason for such decision.
They operate under a broader segment classified as Logistic Services, providing space and scope for segregation, storage and aggregation of companytainerized cargo, i.e. an infrastructural service carried on outside the port premises for handling, loading unloading and storage of companytainerized import, as well as export cargo.
The respondents employees joined the services of the companypany at different times.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal FMA.
The shares of the appellant companypany 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.
The said SBUs are involved in the manufacturing of packing materials, i.e. steel drums and LPG cylinders, grease and lubricants.
Both the Judges delivered their judgment on 30.1.2002 taking different views on the aforesaid issue.
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.
20.5.1976.
301/2001 , against the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
The said respondent joined the appellant companypany in May 1975 as a Management Trainee, and was later on companyfirmed vide order dated 1.6.1976 as an officer in Grade III, subject to the terms and companyditions mentioned in the letter of companyfirmation w.e.f.
He had previously worked in different branches of the companypany in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates etc.
as an Accountant cum Administrative Officer.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. 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.
778/1992, 2613, 2798 3169/2000, 1109/1998 and 1739/1996, by which the Calcutta High Court by a majority decision held that the Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. appellant, is a State within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 hereinafter referred to as, the Constitution , and is thus, amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The appellant companypany carries on business in diverse fields through various Strategic Business Units SBUs .
The appellant companypany is under an obligation to submit its monthly, as well as its half yearly performance reports to the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India.
2038/1993, WP.
