RAM BHAWAN Vs. INSTRUMENTATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER completion of the period of probation, the petitioner was brought on regular cadre of the respondent -company as Additional Manager with effect from 1.10.1979 vide order dated 8.10.1979. In the seniority list of the Additional Managers issued by the management of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner has been shown at S.No. 13. The petitioner has rendered 14 years of continuous service on 1.10.1983 + one year's of Engineering Graduate Apprentice Training. On 3.10.1983, an order came to be issued by which the petitioner was transferred from Production Division, Kota unit to Erection and Commissioning (Commercial Unit). According to the petitioner before transfer order could be served on him, he proceeded on leave with effect from 4.10.1983 to 6.10.1983. He reported back on 7.10.1983. He was relieved from his unit to join Commission. The petitioner again sought leave for 7th and 8th October 1983. and further extension of leave from 9th October to 13th October, with permission to avail of gazetted holidays from 14th October to 17th October. The petitioner left Jaipur for his personal work in anticipation of the sanction of the leave, and, from Jaipur, he sought a telegraphic extension of his leave from 18th October, 1983 to 4th November, 1983. While, at Jaipur his wife at -Kota, received three documents -telegram dated 13.10.1983 and letters dated 13.10.1983 and 20.10.1983. By telegram, the petitioner was informed that his leave applied for October 9 to 13 was not sanctioned. By letter dated 13.10.1983, the petitioner was informed that his leave has not been sanctioned, and, therefore, he was being treated as absent in an authorised manner. He has been asked to explain his conduct by return of post. By the order dated 20.10.1983. the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect in terms of para 6 of the appointment letter as he was absconding till the date. A cheque of three months' pay in lieu of notice, was also enclosed with the letter. The petitioner was shocked to receive the order of termination, and, after having over come shock, he made representation to the bearman -cum -Managing Director, but in vain. According to the petitioner, the order of termination was passed on account of the refusal to take the order of transfer, and, wilful absence from duty. According to the petitioner, the termination order is not non -stigmatory. Feeling aggrieved by the termination order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying that the termination order dated 20.10.1983, be quashed, and, the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has further prayed that para 6 of the appointment letter dated 17.1.1969, may be declared unconstitutional. and, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE respondents, in reply, denied the petition, and, have contested it.

(3.) THE question as to whether the respondent No. 1 company 'The Instrumentation Limited, Kota' is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction, was considered by this Court in the case of Parmatma Prasad Dwivedi v. B.J. Shahaney 1987 (2) WLN 686. This Court has held: