SANDEEP GHILDIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 934 of 2019 dtd. 25/4/2019.

(2.) The petitioner (appellant herein), an employee of the second respondent, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to treat him as a permanent workman under Sec. 3(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Employment Model Standing Orders, 1991 and to provide him full pay and allowances of the post of Traffic Manager from the date of successful completion of one year probation period, and from the date of completion of one year probation period, i.e. 1/5/2015 along with interest; and a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to treat the services of the petitioner as permanent and regular from the date of completion of one year probation period, i.e. 1/5/2015, and to provide full wages along with interest.

(3.) The second respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and, admittedly, the Government of Uttarakhand does not own any shares in the share-capital of the said company. The employees of the second respondent company are governed by the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; and the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Model Standing Orders, 1991, made in terms of the Act, are applicable to the second respondent Company. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that a writ petition would lie against the second respondent, since it discharges public functions.