SUBHAS GANGULY Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of Mercury Travels (India) Limited which is a registered company under the Companies Act. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, it has been contended that since the said company is a tour operator and agents for all the principal Airlines, as such it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Affiliation as tour operator and agents for Airlines does not confer any characteristic on the company to the extent of its being instrumentality and agency of the State. Admittedly, no ingredients as specified fn the decision in the case of Roman Daya Ram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628, has been shown to have been satisfied from the pleadings made out in the writ petition in order to bring the respondent No. 2 within the scope and ambit of an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

(2.) Mr. V. N. Agarwal. learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the order contained in Annexure-7 by which the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on the ground of absence in Bangalore after holding an enquiry in-absentia could not have been passed since an industrial dispute is pending before the Tribunal for the last two years with regard to the issue as to whether the transfer of the petitioner to Bangalore was legal and valid. According to him, such an order could not have been passed in view of Section 6E of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act. Therefore, the order having been passed in violation of statutory provisions, viz 6E of the Industrial Dispute Act, the said order appears to have been passed in discharge of statutory obligation as provided in Section 6E of the said Act. On these grounds, Mr. Agarwal contends that this writ petition is maintainable.

(3.) I have heard Shri V. N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. K. Rai, learned brief holder of respondent No. 1 at length.