NARENDRA AGRAWAL Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN IMMUNOLOGICALS LIMITED, HYDERABAD (A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD), ROAD NO.44, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this Writ Petition through his counsel initially and later on argued the case in person. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) As per the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner states that the respondent-Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Dairy Development Board and that of the Government of India. Thus, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. He further states that majority of the employees except the Managing Director are engaged on contract basis. The petitioner was appointed as Manager Grade-III in marketing department by a letter of appointment dated 02.03.2007. He was initially appointed for a period of three years with effect from 28.02.2007 and his services were stated to be terminable by giving one month notice or by paying one month salary in lieu of notice. He states that he joined the second respondent company after having qualified in B. Pharmacy and MBA. He was sponsored by the Company to undergo executive programme in Marketing (EPM) from IIM, Kozhikode. The compensation payable to the petitioner was revised from time to time and his services were also renewed from time to time. He was promoted as Manager Grade-II with retrospective effect from 01.04.2013. By a Circular dated 20.03.2014 he was given full charge of Marketing-HR and Training and Development of entire marketing work force. However, things became adverse and he was denied revision of compensation though the compensation package was enhanced to all the employees with effect from 01.04.2014. The respondents started harassing and humiliating him and the petitioner was asked to vacate his cabin and share the office space with an employee who is much junior to him on 25.11.2014. When he applied for a casual leave on 26.11.2014 the same was rejected. In those circumstances, he addressed a representation to the fourth respondent on 25.11.2014 ventilating his grievances and it was followed by e-mail dated 22.12.2014. Instead of addressing the grievances, he was issued with an office order dated 02.01.2015 transferring him to distribution department at Ooty plant and he was informed that he would not have any seat in the Head Office from 05.01.2015 onwards and he was asked to report at the transferred place by that date. Due to this turn of events, the petitioner developed health complications and he was admitted in the hospital on 05.01.2015, but a show cause notice was issued on 06.01.2015 alleging that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent without prior permission or intimation. He submitted a reply on 11.01.2015 after discharge from the hospital. He was asked to vacate the quarters by 15.02.2015. The request for personal hearing to the fourth respondent did not yield any result. The petitioner was again admitted in hospital on 23.01.2015 and when he was undergoing treatment, the impugned order dated 24.01.2015 was issued terminating his services with one month notice by invoking Clause 18 of the contract of employment. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed.

(3.) A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents raising the objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition. It is stated that the second respondent company is not a Government of India establishment but it is wholly owned subsidiary company of the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). It has nothing to do with the Government of India as alleged by the petitioner. The second respondent company is independent in its governance with a Board of Directors and it was registered as a non-government company by the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad. Thus, the second respondent company is not an instrumentality of the State. It is further stated that the objectives of the respondent company is only towards its members and customers (human beings and animals who use and likely to use its vaccines and animal formulations) only. It has no power to take any action affecting the rights of the members of the public. The contract of service between the petitioner and the second respondent cannot be termed as coming under public law. It is a pure and simple contract of service regulating the relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent.