(1.) AGGRIEVED against the directions issued by the single Judge to the appellant, which is a private limited company, constituted under the companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacture of Electro Technical and electronic Components, the appellant has come up in appeal on the short ground that the appellant not being the "state", local or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was not maintainable against it. Facts.- The Writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "respondent No. 1") was appointed as a drilling machine operator by the appellant on May 11, 1991. He was confirmed in service on October 13, 1994. The appellant served a show-cause notice on respondent no. 1 dated November 27, 1998, alleging that he and other workers had struck work with effect from October 20, 1998, and as such the appellant was contemplating to take appropriate action against him for having gone on illegal strike. Besides deducting 8 days' wages as per the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, respondent No. 1 was placed under suspension on October 20, 1998.
(2.) ON receipt of the order, respondent No. 1 approached the appellant and requested him to provide employment with continuity of service and other benefits. This request was rejected by the appellant and respondent No. 1 was not taken back on duty.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"), dated February 11, 1999, before the jurisdictional Tribunal for payment of subsistence allowance payable to him from the date of suspension. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had been transferred and a fresh officer in his place had not been appointed. As there was no progress in the case, respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court for issuance of a writ or direction directing the respondents to-