MAYA Vs. HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Maya, the petitioner, has laid this writ petition for craving the under mentioned reliefs:

(2.) THE foundation of claiming the aforesaid reliefs, as adumbrated from the facts narrated in the writ petition, is that husband of the petitioner, Om Prakash, was in employment of the respondent company since 1984. While serving the respondent as regular employee "Mazdoor", Shri Om Prakash Harijan died in harness on 6th of May 2001. As per the petitioner, Late Om Prakash was allotted residential accommodation in the form of Quarter No.A-47/1 by the respondent for dwelling. After death of Om Prakash, who was the sole bread winner of the family, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds vide her application dated 10th of March 2002 at Rajpura Dariba office of the respondent. After receiving the application, the petitioner was conveyed that she could inquire about further action in the month of June, however, up to June 2002 when no heed was paid to her application, she again visited Rajpura Dariba office. On approach to the said office, the petitioner was intimated that requisite information in this connection could be divulged by the Head Office at Udaipur. Thereafter, as per the version of the petitioner, she contacted the concerned officer at Head Office, Udaipur, where she was informed that the application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has been filed after three months from the date of death of her husband, therefore, the said application is not worth consideration. The petitioner has further asserted that the concerned officer of the Head Office also advised her to file fresh application with requisite explanation of the delay and thereupon yet another application was submitted by her on 18th of June 2002 for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Highlighting her educational qualification as Secondary School Examination, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in the writ petition that she is unemployed and therefore unable to maintain the bereaved family consisting of three members. Adverting to the residential accommodation in the form of quarter allotted to her late husband by the respondent company, the petitioner has categorically averred that the respondent company has deducted Rs.30,000 from PF amount of her husband against the rent of the quarter although no such deduction from the PF amount is permissible. The petitioner has also raised her grievances against the respondent in the petition by alleging that the respondent company is harassing her and compelling her to vacate the quarter. Requisite notice for eviction issued under the Rajasthan Premises (Unauthorized Occupants) Act dated 3rd of March 2002 is also annexed with the writ petition.

(3.) AT the threshold, in response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, on behalf of the respondent company preliminary reply was submitted on 1st of April 2002. In the preliminary reply, the respondent company has questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the company is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent has asserted with full emphasis that it does not fall within the ambit of definition of "other authorities" envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition against it is not tenable. With a view to clarify the position, the respondent has pleaded in the return that earlier respondent was a Government of India enterprise but recently Government of India has disinvested 26% equity of the respondent company and the entire management of the company has been transferred to strategic partner (S.P.) M/s. Sterlite Opportunities and Ventures Limited (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'SOVL') on 11th April 2002. In support of this assertion, the respondent has also placed on record Memorandum dated 15th of May 2002 issued by the Government of India as Annex.R/1 making it crystal clear that now the respondent company is no longer a Public Sector Undertaking. Substantiating its stand that the respondent company is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court, in the reply, the respondent has indicated that strategic partner i.e. SOVL now owns 45.90% capital of the company and out of eleven Board of Directors of the company, six belong to SOVL and only five Directors belong to Government of India. On the anvil of these facts, the respondent company has emphatically asserted in the preliminary reply that the Government of India does not have a deep and pervasive control over functioning of the company.