Bindu Natrajan vs Avi Oil India P Ltd
2013 Latest Caselaw 856 Del

*            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

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

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