DINESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner has come up in intra-court appeal against order dated 31.07.2017 whereby the writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 08.06.2016 (Annexure P-6) dispensing with his services and seeking reinstatement as Senior Manager was dismissed on ground of there being no pleadings in the writ petition to show that respondent No. 3 i.e. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was a 'State' or 'Instrumentality of State' so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction, besides on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction as the impugned communication (Annexure P-6) had been passed by respondent No. 3 located in Mumbai while the appellant-petitioner's resignation had been accepted while he was serving in Andhra Pradesh.

(2.) Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant Intra-court Appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Supervisor on 26.12.1981 in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited at its Branch office, Industrial Area, Mohali. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted as Senior Manager-Production i.e. a Class B-I job w.e.f 01.01.2004. In December 2011, Ranbaxy Plant in Mohali was closed down whereupon the appellant was appointed as Senior Manager, Class B-2 and was transferred to Ranbaxy Branch in Ropar, Tonsa, Punjab from where he was transferred to Ranbaxy Branch at Dewas, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh. In the year 2015, Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited was taken over by respondent No. 3 whereupon the appellant joined respondent No. 3 in March 2015. On 10.03.2016, the appellant claims that he was asked to submit resignation whereupon he had to submit his resignation as he was threatened that otherwise his services would be terminated. On 08.06.2016, the appellant received letter of acceptance of his resignation by the Management informing him that he would be relieved from duty on the closing of working hours of 08.06.2016.

(3.) Grievance of the appellant-petitioner is that resignation was taken from him by respondent No. 3 without assigning any misconduct, violation of duties and responsibilities of the post and the same was violative of Service Rules as specified in the Code of Conduct Rules of the respondent-Industry. In the circumstances, the appellant invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing CWP No. 10600 of 2017. In paragraph No. 14 of the grounds of appeal, it has been mentioned that pursuant to order dated 19.07.2017, counsel addressed arguments on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition on 31.07.2017 and referred to various judgments but the learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition on ground of jurisdiction without considering the submissions advanced by the counsel, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. The learned Writ Court had failed to consider that cases involving public interest did not have any jurisdiction limits.