* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.1196/2011
% February 20, 2013
BINDU NATRAJAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parivesh Singh with
Mr. R.Satish Kumar, Advs.
versus
AVI OIL INDIA P LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikas Goel with
Ms. Neha Goyal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was an employee of the respondent-company, and whose services were terminated in terms of the appointment letter by giving three months' salary.
2. The issue in the present case is whether the writ petition is maintainable more so when the contractual condition of the petitioner having received three months' salary was complied with.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a Division WP(C) No.1196/2011 Page 1 of 3 Bench judgment of this Court in the case of P.B.Ghayalod vs. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., AIR 1992 Delhi 145 in which the ratio which is laid down is that merely because the Government of India collaborates with a foreign company in formation of a new company would not mean that the new company becomes an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India especially because the company (Maruti Udyog Ltd.) is not a monopoly company. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench in the case of P.B.Ghayalod (supra) has recently been followed in Ajay Bhatia vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2010 VI AD (Delhi) 166.
4. In the present case, 50% shareholding of the respondent- company is of a French Company, M/s. NYCO SA (France). The other two companies which hold shareholding in the respondent-company are the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. which are Indian companies and PSUs.
5. The respondent in its counter affidavit in its preliminary objections had specifically taken up the stand of the writ petition not being maintainable against the respondent which is not a State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. There is only a general denial in the rejoinder to this aspect. Unless majority of the funds are provided by the Government or WP(C) No.1196/2011 Page 2 of 3 the Government exercises overall and supervening control, a company such as the present respondent-company cannot become a public sector undertaking or a State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As observed in the case of P.B.Ghayalod (supra), and which dealt with the company-M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., that Courts should not interfere when the company in question is not a State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the concurring judgment, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wad has referred to the fact that new economic realities have to be taken into consideration and when foreign companies are invited to invest in Indian companies which have foreign investors, if newly formed companies are treated as a State, the same will violate investment climate.
6. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent which is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
7. Petitioner is at liberty to seek remedy, if available in law, before the appropriate forum/Court.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 20, 2013 ak WP(C) No.1196/2011 Page 3 of 3