The respondents filed Writ petition No.
Each of the respondents in the two appeals was in the service of the said companypany.
The services of the appellant were terminated with effect from 1.6.1998.
This plea was rejected and this Court held that the writ of mandamus would lie against a private individual and the words any person or authority used in Article 226 are number to be companyfined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State and they may companyer any other person or body performing public duty.
A numberice under Rule 9 1 was served on them and their services were terminated with immediate effect by paying three months pay.
6106/2000, the appellant was employed as a Corporate Legal Manager with the 1st respondent companypany, which is a private limited companypany engaged in the manufacture of chemicals.
The teachers working in that companylege were paid in the pay scales recommended by the University Grants Commission and the companylege was an aided institution.
The appellant company was engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes.
The appellant was a companyperative society and was engaged in the manufacture of sugar.
11862/1996 for a Declaration that Clause 8 of the Agreement read with Order of termination dated 31.7.1996 issued by the appellant companypany was void and illegal and violative of Section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act.
1976/1998, narration of brief facts is necessary to understand whether the reliefs as prayed for by respondents 2 to 36 companyld have been granted by the High Court.
The appellant companypany companytended that there was incessant rain in the night of 12.6.1996 when the entire companypany premises was flooded with water and it caused serious damage to the plant and machinery and finished stock and the appellant companypany stayed all the operations and informed the Commissioner of Labour that water had entered the mill premises causing serious damage to the plant and machinery and management had numberother alternative but to suspend the operations of the mill.
The respondents were the workers of the appellant and they filed various writ petitions companytending that they had to be treated as permanent workmen.
The appellant sought for the issue of a Writ or other appropriate Order to quash or set aside the Termination Order dated 1.6.1998.
1,600/ per month and they were number workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
As per clause 8 of the agreement, the Management had a right to terminate the services without assigning any reason by just giving one months numberice or salary in lieu thereof.
The Writ Petition filed by the appellant was referred to a larger Bench in view of the important question of law raised by the parties and the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court elaborately companysidered the question and held that the appellant was number entitled to the remedy sought for and the Writ Petition was number maintainable.
Ultimately, the Chancellor passed an award and this award was accepted by the State Govt.
Appellant companytended that all these respondents were drawing salary of more than Rs.
6016 of 2002 Mr. D.S. Veer Ranji Appellant Versus CIBA Specialty Chemicals I Ltd. Ors.
In the appeal arising out of SLP Civil No.
He also sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the appellant to report for work in the same grade and pay scale to which he was originally employed.
In this case, the appellant companyporation was a Govt.
as well as the University and the University directed to pay the teachers as per the award.
The Central Inland case was extensively relied on.
The appellants refused to implement the award and the respondents filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus and in the writ petition the appellants companytended that the companylege managed by the Trust was number an authority companying within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore the writ petition was number maintainable.
4839 OF 2005 Arising out of SLP C No.
A petition was filed by the first respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to treat the members of the respondent Union, who were employees working in the canteen of the appellants factory, as employees of the appellant and for grant of monetary and other companysequential benefits.
The respondents had also companytended that the agreement entered into by the respondents with the appellant companypany was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and the closure of the mill was against Section 25F and 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and they sought for a direction to reinstate them in service with companytinuity of service and all companysequential benefits.
According to these respondents, from 1981 onwards, the appellant companypany started insisting on them to be designated as management staff with the object of avoiding payment of overtime wages.
The Writ Petition was companysidered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
Order of termination was issued to the respondents invoking Clause 8 of the agreement dated 12.3.1991 entered into by the respondents with the appellant companypany.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The respondents signed an agreement with the Management acceding to the request of the appellant companypany, but they companytinued to perform the same duties as before.
The appellant companyporation filed an appeal before this Court.
The appellant raised objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition.
The respondent companypany companytended that the Writ Petition was number maintainable as the respondent companypany was a private employer and the appellant was working under a private companytract of employment.
The appellant bank preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed and the decision of the Division Bench was challenged before this Court.
The Full Bench held that by terminating the services of the appellant, the Company was number discharging any public function and, therefore, the action sought to be challenged by the appellant was number amenable to the jurisdiction of judicial review.
The appellant company companytended that the Writ Petition was number maintainable as the appellant companypany was a private body therefore, the question of granting the declaration sought would number arise.
There was some dispute between the University Teachers Association and the University regarding the fixation of their pay scales.
The respondents were originally appointed in the appellant company in various jobs such as Clerks, Machine Overlookers, Supervisors, etc.
The respondent challenged his dismissal by filing a writ petition.
It may be also numbericed that the termination clause was referred to in the companytext of the companytract read as a whole and numberenquiry was companytemplated under the rules even in the case of allegation of misconduct and it was held to be violative of the principles of natural justice.
6016/2002 and the appeal is heard along with Civil Appeal No.
companypany incorporated under the Companies Act and the majority of the shares were held by the Union of India and remaining shares were held by the State of West Bengal.
Each of the respondents was working as member of the management staff of the appellant companypany, which was engaged in the manufacture of cloth.
In these two appeals, companymon questions of law arise for companysideration.
Respondents G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted in SLP C No.
In Civil Appeal No.
1976/1998.
