(1.) The two writ petitions seeking various reliefs are filed by the employees of the two banks, the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., and the Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. A threshold question arises in the cases. That is about the maintainability of the writ petition itself as against the banks. Do the banks answer the definition of a State or authority under Art.12 of the Constitution, and therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction
(2.) Sri. K. M. Joseph argued the matter with considerable force, supported by a thorough and detailed study of the working of the banking institutions and developments in the constitutional law. In one sense, it might require devoting considerable space for adverting to his very elaborate arguments, abundance of factual materials and the long passages from the case law to which reference had been made by him. A compression of the salient aspects is, however, attempted, in as much as the law on the point is encapsulated by authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court. On most of the factual aspects on which emphasis had been given, there was no controversy. Thus, notwithstanding the pervasiveness of the arguments, the contention, discussion and conclusion can be dealt with in a not-too-prolix judgment.
(3.) Before examining the question in its own circumscribed area, it is profitable to have a general view of the pattern of functioning of private undertakings under the Constitution of India. Our Constitution is one which permits the co-existence of the public and private sectors. The means of production are not all monopolised by the State, though under Art.39(c) "the State shall.........direct its policy towards securing ... .that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment". The former Prime Minister of India declared in the inaugural address to the U. N. Seminar on Management of Public Industrial Enterprises in 1959: