JOGESH CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is justifiably-aggrieved by what appears to be a series of errors committed, but the petitioner is not entitled to the relief "that the petitioner claims. The petitioner was engaged by Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited which had been taken over by the Union.

(2.) The petitioner was engaged on temporary basis for more than 240 days at least in three consecutive years in 1990, 1991 and 1992 and claimed in a petition filed in this Court in the year 1993 that the petitioner ought to have been considered for regularisation. Apparently, the petitioner was required, by a verbal order of December 26, 1992, to not report to his post and it was such verbal order of removal from engagement that the petitioner challenged in CO 2038 (W) of 1993. For reasons that now do not appear to be comprehensible, it was contended by the employer, despite such company having been taken over by the Central Government, that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable against it. It appears that in another matter filed by another employee or temporary worker in Balmer Lawrie, a Single Bench of this Court held that the company was not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, as such, no petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be maintained against it.

(3.) In this petitioner's previous petition, CO 2038 (W) of 1993, it was submitted at the final hearing that a final view on the status of Balmer Lawrie had been taken by a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. Notwithstanding such previous decision being brought to the notice of the Single Judge in course of final hearing of CO 2038 (W) of 1993, a contrary view was taken and it was asserted in the judgment of March 27, 2001 that Balmer Lawrie was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, as such, the petition was maintainable.