Short Note : 1. It was not disputed that the employer respondent No. 2 is a Company governed by the provisions of the Companies Act just like the Hindustan Steel Limited etc. It was also not disputed that major percentage of shares is owned by the Government of India. Even according to the petitioner, he was not governed by the Industrial Legislation in the shape of Industrial Employment Standing Orders and other enactments as the post held by him was not included in the definition of 'workman' under any enactment of Industrial Legislation. The writ for the aforesaid directions was, however, claimed by contending that despite the fact that the respondent No. 2 employer was a Company, the same was amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court for the reason that major percentage of shares of the said Company was owned by the Union Government. 2. A preliminary objection was raised at the beginning of arguments that since the relationship of the petitioner and the respondent Company was not governed by any Industrial Legislation and there being no statutory obligation, the Company, which is not a statutory body, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and the petition moved by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable. Held : Without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the stale claims of more than 10 years, made in the petition filed in 1972, by the petitioner regarding promotion, seniority and membership of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme with retrospective effect, it would suffice to observe that since the respondent Employer is not a statutory body and no statutory obligation could be pointed out by the petitioner so as to make the respondent Company amenable to writ jurisdiction, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary ground of non-maintainability. Since it is a case governed by the law of master and servant, the petitioner could not claim any relief by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and his remedy, if any tenable according to law, could be before the Civil Court under the general law. 3. Since it is a case governed by the law of master and servant, the petitioner could not claim any relief by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and his remedy, if any tenable according to law, could be before the Civil Court under the general law. 3. The legal position in this behalf about the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to include certain Corporations within the terms 'State' or 'other authorities' has been settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Sabhajit v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1329 and Sukhdev Singh v. Bhaktram, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1331. The petition is, therefore, not maintainable at all as the, respondent Company is not amenable to writ jurisdiction in the subject-matter of the present petition. AIR 1975 SC 1329 & AIR 1975 SC 1331 , relied on. Petition dismissed.