SUBHAS GANGUII AGRA Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. 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 ex tent of its being instrumentality and agen cy of the State. Admittedly no ingredients as specified in the decision in the case of Raman Daya Ram Shetty v. The Interna tional Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC1628 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. VN. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that the order contained in Annexure-7 by which the services of the petitioner were dis pensed with on the ground of absence in Bangalore after holding an enquiry in-ab-sentia 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 6-E of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act. Therefore, the order having been passed in violation of statutory provisions viz Section 6-E of the Industrial Dispute Act, the said order appears to have been passed in discharge or statutory obligation as provided in Section 6-E of the said Act. On these grounds MR. Agarwal contends that this writ petition is maintainable.

(3.) IN the case of U. P State Co-opera tive Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey, 1999 (1) UPLBEC 296, it is held that writ lies even against a private individual and the right that is infr inged may be under Part III, of the Con stitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him. But then the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution have laid down guideline through self-imposed limitations subject to which such jurisdic tion is to be exercised by the High Court. But such, guidelines are not mandatory in all circumstances. At the same time the High Court does not act like a proverbial bull in a China shop in exercise of its juris diction under Article 226.