Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 192 (RAJ)

WAPCOS Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India

1993-03-23

A.K.MATHUR

body1993
Honble MATHUR, J.—All these writ petitions involve common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. (2). For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions the facts given in the case of WAPCOS Karamchari Sangh, Bikaner vs. Union of India and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2335 of 1992) are taken into consideration. (3). The petitioner Sangh by this writ petition had prayed that the persons shown in Schedule A may be ordered to be regularised and they may be declared as employees of the Union of India or they may be declared as the employees of the WAPCOS or in the alternative the employees of the State of Rajasthan. It is also prayed that the respondents may be restrained from dispensing with the services of the members of the petitioner Sangh and they may be directed to be absorbed by the respondent State of Rajasthan in the event of there being any dispensation of services of these persons. The respondents may also be directed to regularise these persons in the pay scale of Rs. 1410-2330/-from the date of appointment and they may be paid the difference of the amount with interest. It is also prayed that they may be provided the other facilities like leave, T.A., D.A., Medical Allowance, H.R.A., City Compensatory Allowance and Desert Allowance etc. (4). The petitioner is an Association of the employees who are at present working as Surveyors with the respondent No. 2 i.e. Water & Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd. (referred to hereinafter as the WAPCOS). The Association was constituted to espouse the common cause of its members and to raise their demands and to have collective bargaining with the concerned authorities. This writ petition has been filed with respect to its members whose details are mentioned in the annexed Schedule A. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 WAPCOS is a Government of India undertaking and is functioning under the control of the Ministry of Water Resources and was set up to provide consultancy services for planning and development of water resources. This Company provides its services through its own personnel and through the pooled expertise available from the various reputed organisations of the Government of India and the State Government. This Company provides its services through its own personnel and through the pooled expertise available from the various reputed organisations of the Government of India and the State Government. It is alleged that looking to the nature of its set up and the fact that the entire finances are being made available by the Government of India and it enjoys control over it, thus, it is an agency or instrumentality of the Union of India and is, thus, a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is alleged that WAPCOS is a wide expanding organisation of the Government of India and is registered with the International Organisations such as African Development Bank; Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa; Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development; Asian Development; Bank, Food and Agriculture Organisation; World Bank/International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Fund for Agricultural Development; Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development; United Nations Development Programme; United Nations Organisation; World Health Organisation and West African Development Bank. It is alleged that the respondent WAPCOS is rendering the following kind of services : — i. Reconnaissance Surveys. ii. Pre-investment surveys and investigations. iii. Profeasility and Feasibility Studies. iv. Planning Studies and Project Reports. v. Master Plans and Regional Development Plans. vi. Market and Socio-economic Studies. vii. Environmental Studies. viii. Hydraulic and Engineering Studies. ix. Engineering Designs Preliminary and Detailed. x. Cost Estimation and Economic Analysis. xi. System Studies. xii. Project Evaluation and Appraisal. xiii. Preparation of Specifications. xiv. Construct Processing and Evaluation. xv. Construction, Planning and Scheduling. xvi. Construction, Supervision and Management. xvii. Turnkey Jobs in Selected Fields. xviii. Inspection and Quality Surveillance. xix. Training and Transfer of Technology. xx. Operation and Maintenance. xxi. Institutional Strengthening. xxii. Technical Assistance and Advisory Services. xxiii. Testing and Research. xxiv. Project Management and Accounting System. (5). It is alleged that in view of the nature of the services being discharged by WAPCOS it is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to hereinafter as the Act of 1947). The services of WAPCOS have been requisitioned for the Rajasthan Canal i.e. Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (hereinafter referred to as "the I.G.N.P."). The services of WAPCOS have been requisitioned for the Rajasthan Canal i.e. Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (hereinafter referred to as "the I.G.N.P."). Prior to entrusting the task of Sarvey, research, micro-canalisation, designing and planning water course was carried on by the Irrigation Department through its agency. It is alleged that the Government of India as well as the Government of Rajasthan felt that conditions of unemployment in the country is very much and, therefore, they requisitioned the services of the technical hands, who are unemployed. It is alleged that the persons mentioned in Schedule A were working with this organisation i.e. WAPCOS for the last 3 years. It is alleged that this organisation issued an advertisement which was published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 26.11.1988 and invited applications from the persons who were holding the Degree in Engineering. As per the advertisement there were 120 posts and the job required to be performed" by them was to conduct the command area survey, finalising the alignment of water course, preparation of L Sections and estimation of quantities. This job was to be done for the Government of Rajasthan by this organisation and this organisation employed the services of all the persons for undertaking this work. It is alleged that the petitioners members applied for the posts on the belief that the respondent No.2 is an organisation of the Government of India and is of permanent nature. The members of the petitioner Association applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and came to be selected on various dates but their hopes were belied when they came across an office order dated 28.10.1989 id" which it was mentioned that they were appointed for fixed term. It was mentioned that the order appointment of the petitioners members was only for a period of 6 months with effect from the date of joining. A copy of the order has been placed on the record as Annex. 3. Thereafter, another order was passed by the respondent No. 2 on 26.5.1990 and their service tenure was extended upto 9.6.1990 only on the same terms and conditions. Then again it was extended upto 9.6.1990 only on the same terms and conditions. Then again it was extended upto 31.7.1990. It is alleged that thereafter the services of the petitioners members were further extended upto 31.12.1990. Then again it was extended upto 9.6.1990 only on the same terms and conditions. Then again it was extended upto 31.7.1990. It is alleged that thereafter the services of the petitioners members were further extended upto 31.12.1990. Then, it was further extended upto 31.3.1991 and likewise it was extended upto 30.6.1991 and thereafter from 1.7.1991 the major survey camps were closed down and the services of these persons were laid off. Therefore, in these circumstances the petitioner Association has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. (6). The grievance of the petitioner is that this organisation is a Government of India undertaking and these incumbents have joined the services from 1988 onwards, therefore, their services may be regularised. Secondly, it was contended that if the organisation is closing its unit then the members of the petitioner should have been given the benefit of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947. They have also prayed for equal pay for equal work. It is also contended that the members of the petitioner Association are the employees of the Government of Rajasthan by virtue of the Rajasthan Amendment in Section 2(g) of the Act of 1947. It is also contended that Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 has not been complied with in the present case. A number of cases were cited in support of the regularisation, which will be referred to hereinafter. (7). As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that this writ petition is not maintainable for the simple reason that the respondent No. 2 i.e. WAPCOS is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the appointments in the present case were contractual ones and therefore, by virtue of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act of 1947 the laying off of the members of the petitioner Association does not amount to retrenchment. Therefore, these incumbents are not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F and Section 25-H of the Act of 1947. (8). The preliminary objection, which has been raised by respondents that whether WAPCOS is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has to be disposed of first. (9). Therefore, these incumbents are not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F and Section 25-H of the Act of 1947. (8). The preliminary objection, which has been raised by respondents that whether WAPCOS is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has to be disposed of first. (9). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the respondent No. 2 is a Government of India Undertaking and it has all pervasive control over it, therefore, it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and in this connection he has placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Hasia etc. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others (1). (10). As against this learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to the case of Chander Mohan Khanna vs. The National Council of Educational Research and Training & Ors. (2). (11). Before I refer to the cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be proper to refer the Memorandum of Association of the present Company. (12). The respondent No.2 Water & Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd. is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office in Delhi. The main objects of the Company have been detailed in Clauses 3-A, 3.B and 3.C of the Memorandum of Association. The main objects of the Company are to establish, provide and perform engineering and related technical and consultancy services for development of water resources, irrigation and drainage, electric power, flood control and water supply projects. It has also to carry on all kinds of business relating to the pre-investment surveys and investigations, planning, design, supervision of construction, operation and maintenance of all kinds of works involved in the development and utilisation of water resources, generation and utilisation of electric power, topographic surveys, aerial photography, Hydrological surveys, meteorological surveys, geological surveys, material surveys, underground resources investigations, soil surveys and land classification surveys. The incidental or ancillary objects are to carry on any business relating to the production and preparation of any other materials which may be usefully or with advantage combined with the engineering business of the Company or any contracts undertaken by the Company. The incidental or ancillary objects are to carry on any business relating to the production and preparation of any other materials which may be usefully or with advantage combined with the engineering business of the Company or any contracts undertaken by the Company. It can enter into any agreements with any Government, Indian or Foreign, or with any authorities, public, municipal, local, railway or other wise or with any other person and to purchase or otherwise acquire and undertake the whole or any part of the business, property, rights and liabilities of any person, firm or company, to pay out of the funds of the Company all costs, charges and expenses which the Company may lawfully incur with respect to the promotion, formation and registration of the Company and/or the issue of its capital. It can borrow or raise money or to receive money on deposit or loan at interest or otherwise in such manner as the Company may think fit. It can invest and deal with the moneys of the Company not immediately required. It can promote and form and to be interested in and take, hold and dispose of shares in other Companies and to transfer to any such Company any property of this Company. The authorised share capital of the Company is Rs. 50,00,000/- divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 100/- each. Its subscribers are President of India, Chairman and Vice-Chairman, Central Water and Power Commission, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation and Power etc. (13). The Article of Association says that the Company is a Private Company. The Company shall regulate its business through the Board of Directors and until otherwise determined in the general meeting the number of Directors of the Company shall not be less than three and not more than twelve. The President shall appoint one of the Directors as the Chairman and shall appoint other Directors in consultation with the Chairman provided that no such consultation is necessary in respect of Government representatives on the Board of Directors of the Company. The directors including the Chairman/Managing Director shall be paid such salary and/or allowances as the President may, from time to time, determine. The directors including the Chairman/Managing Director shall be paid such salary and/or allowances as the President may, from time to time, determine. The Directors may, from time to time, entrust and confer upon Chairman or Managing Director for the time being such of the powers as they may think fit and may confer such powers for such time and to be exercised for such objects and purposes and for such terms and conditions and with such restrictions as they may think expedient a.05.from time to time, revoke, withdraw, alter or vary all or any of such powers. The Board of Directors shall meet together at least once in every three months and at least four such meetings shall be held in every year, for the despatch of business and may adjourn and otherwise regulate its meetings and proceedings as it thinks fit. The Chairman of the Board of Directors shall be appointed by the President. Then, Quorum has also been fixed for transacting the business. It further says that the Board of Directors shall appoint and at their discretion remove or suspend such Managers, Secretaries, officers, clerks, agents and servants for permanent, temporary or special services as they may, from time to time, think fit and to determine their powers and duties and fix their salaries or emoluments and to require security in such instances and to such amount, as they may think fit. It further empowers the Board of Directors to appoint foreign technical personnel without any ceiling of salary, in broad conformity with the policy of Government in this respect. It further says that subject to such directions as may, from time to time, be issued by the President in this behalf, the Boa.05.from time to time, before recommending any dividend, set apart any and such portion of the profits of the Company, as it thinks fit, as Reserves to meet contingencies or, for the liquidation of any debentures, debts or other liabilities of the Company. It is stated that at every Annual General Meeting, the Board shall lay before the Company, a Balance-sheet and Profit and Loss Account made up in accordance with the provisions of Section 210 of the Act. The books of accounts of the Company shall be examined by one or more Auditor or Auditors once at least in every year. It is stated that at every Annual General Meeting, the Board shall lay before the Company, a Balance-sheet and Profit and Loss Account made up in accordance with the provisions of Section 210 of the Act. The books of accounts of the Company shall be examined by one or more Auditor or Auditors once at least in every year. Lastly clause 143 which was substituted by the 19th Annual General Meeting dated 28.9.1988 confers a power on the President that notwithstanding anything contained in any of these Articles the President may issue from time to time such directives or instructions as may be considered necessary in regard to the finances conduct of business and affairs of the Company. Clause 143 reads as under: — "143. Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these Articles the President may, from time to time, issue such directives or instructions as may be considered necessary in regard to the finances conduct of business and affairs of the Company. The Company shall give immediate effect to the directives or instructions so issued. Provided that all directives issued by the President shall be in writing addressed to the Chairman. The Board shall except where the President considers that the interest of the national Security requires otherwise, incorporate the contents of directives issued by the President report of the company and also indicate its impact on the financial position of the Company. In particular the President will have the powers: (ii) to call for such return, accounts and other information with respect to the property and activities of the enterprise as may be required from time to time; (iii) to approve the enterprises five year and annual plans of development and the enterprises Capital Budget; (iv) to approve agreements involving foreign collaboration proposed to be entered into by the enterprise. (14). Clause 144 says that with the approval of the President the Company cannot embark upon or incur any liability. Clause 144 reads as under : — "144. (14). Clause 144 says that with the approval of the President the Company cannot embark upon or incur any liability. Clause 144 reads as under : — "144. Save with the prior approval of the President, the Company shall not embark upon or incur any liability, or enter into any agreement or arrangement for embarking upon, any objects other than the main objects specified in the Memorandum, except to the extent that the exercise, by the Company, of the powers under the relevant sub-clauses is, in the opinion of the Board of Directors, necessary for the fulfilment of the main objects". (15). In this set-up I have to examine that the present Company which is a Government Company can be said to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. (16). In the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) the Constitutional bench had laid down the parameters for examining the question whether a body/corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not. In this context it was observed by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court as under: — "It is immaterial for determining whether a Corporation is an authority whether the Corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not as to how it is created. The inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. The Corporation may be a statutory corporation created by a statute or it may be a Government company or a company formed under the Companies Act or it may be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or any other similar statute. Whatever be its genetical origin, it would be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. Whatever be its genetical origin, it would be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. The concept of instrumentality or agency of the Government is not limited to a corporation created by a statute but is equally applicable to a company or society and in a given case it would have to be decided, on a consideration of the relevant factors, whether the company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12. A juristic entity which may be "State" for the purpose of Parts III and IV would not be so for the purpose of Part XIV or any other provision of the Constitution". (17). The Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after making detail enquiry came to the conclusion that though the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar may be registered under the Jammu & Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898 but still is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India because the control of the State and the Central Government is indeed so deep and pervasive that no property can be disposed of in any manner without the approval of both the Governments. It is also held that the Board of Governors which is Incharge of general superintendence direction and control of the affairs of the Society and of its income or property is also largely controlled by nominees of the State and the Central Government. It is submitted that in these circumstances the State as well as the Central Governments have full control of the working of the society. In these circumstances it was held to be a State. (18). As against this learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to a recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chander Mohan Khanna (supra). This was a case of National Council of Educational Research and Training (for short "N.C.E.R.T." hereinafter). This was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and it has also a Memorandum of Association and rules for internal management. This was a case of National Council of Educational Research and Training (for short "N.C.E.R.T." hereinafter). This was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and it has also a Memorandum of Association and rules for internal management. The object of the N.C.E.R.T. is to assist and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the implementation of its policies and major programmes in the field of education particularly school education. Though the funds of the NCERT were of the Government i.e. grants made by the Government and contribution from other sources and income from its own assets and receipt of the council from other sources. It use to conduct its business through its Executive Committee comprising of various Government officials including the Chairman, University Grants Commission, four Vice-Chancellors and a number of nominees. The Council is free to apply its income and property towards the promotion of its objectives and implementation of the programmes, in such a manner as it may think fit. However, it was subject to the limitations placed by the Government of India in this regard only in respect of the expenditure of grants made by the Government. The Government of India could review the work and progress of the Council and take appropriate action to give effect to the reports received on enquiries. The Government of India could also issue directions to the Council on important matters of policy and programmes. This was the set-up of this institution. After examining the Memorandum of Association as detailed above, the Honble Supreme Court even after considering all the cases on the subject including the Constitution Bench decision of Ajay Hasias case (supra) and other decisions bearing on the subject came to the conclusion that however vast may be the control of the Government still the Honble Supreme Court did not feel inclined to hold such Council as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was observed as under:- "Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep expression "State ". A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. It must not be lost sight of that in the modern concept of welfare State; independent institution, corporation and agency are generally subject to State control. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. It must not be lost sight of that in the modern concept of welfare State; independent institution, corporation and agency are generally subject to State control. The State control does not render such bodies as "State" under Article 12. The State control, however, vast and pervasive is not determinative. The financial contribution by the State is not conclusive. The combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body, and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory functions of the State may largely point out that the body is "State". If the Government operates behind a corporate veil, carrying out governmental activity and governmental functions of vital public importance, there may be little difficulty in identifying the body as "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution". (19). The Honble Supreme Court referred to the other sets of cases, namely Sukhdev Singh vs. Bhagat Ram (3), R.D. Shetty vs. International Airport Authority (4), Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardhi (5) and Som Prakash Rekhi vs. Union of India (6). The other sets of cases were also referred to by the Honble Supreme Court in its judgment i.e. P.K. Ramakrishna Iyer vs. Union of India (7); Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs. Brojonath Gangoli (8) and Tekraj Vasandhi alias K.L. Basandhi vs. Union of India (9), but notwithstanding referring to these cases, still the Honble Supreme Court inclined to hold that NCERT is not "State " within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. (20). Now, keeping in view the recent judgment given by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Mohan Khanna (supra), I have to examine the objects of this Company, the finances of the Company and the control of the Government over this Company. The objects of the Company as mentioned in the Memorandum of Association under Clause 3-A read as under: — "3.A. The main objects for which the Company is established are: —(1) To establish, provide and perform engineering and related technical and consultancy services for development of water resources, irrigation and drainage, electric power, flood control and water supply projects. The objects of the Company as mentioned in the Memorandum of Association under Clause 3-A read as under: — "3.A. The main objects for which the Company is established are: —(1) To establish, provide and perform engineering and related technical and consultancy services for development of water resources, irrigation and drainage, electric power, flood control and water supply projects. (2) To establish, provide, maintain and perform procurement, inspection, expediting, management of construction and related services in connection with the construction of water resources development projects including dams, barrages, weirs, tunnels, canals, hydro-power stations; and thermal power stations and transmission and distribution systems. (3) To carry on all kinds of business relating to: (a) the pre-investment surveys and investigations, planning, design, supervision of construction, operation and maintenance of all kinds of works involved in the development and utilisation of water resources generation and utilisation of electric power; and (b) topographic surveys, aerial photography, hydrological surveys, meteorological surveys, geological surveys, material surveys, underground resources investigates, soil surveys and land classification surveys. (4) To issue tenders for works, services and equipment on behalf of customers and be responsible for scrutinizing them and advising the customers suitably. (5) To organised and supervise the eraction and commissioning of generating plants, electrical equipment, electric transmission and distribution systems". (21). It has also incidental or ancillary objects to the attainment of the main objects which are enumerated in 3-B and 3-C. A perusal of the main objects which are reproduced above shows that it is largely a consultancy Company and the objects with which this Company is established are more or less of the nature which can be undertaken by a private company. But the Government thought it proper that instead of granting job of consultancy to any private company the Government itself has floated this Company that for its projects the consultancy may be given by this Company. This Company has to provide primary consultancy for engineering services like planning, design,supervision of construction or operation and maintenance of all kinds of works involved in the development and utilisation of water resources, generation and utilisation of electric power, topographic surveys, aerial photography, hydrological surveys, meteorological and geological surveys, material surveys, underground resources investigations, soil surveys and land classification surveys/These are all matters which cannot be said to be governmental functions. They are more of services in nature, which can be done by a private company also. They are more of services in nature, which can be done by a private company also. These activities of the Company cannot necessarily a part or adjunct of the State. By and large the necessary adjunct of the State, is sovereign function, maintenance of law and order and maintenance of public services. The idea of State is to govern with authority and its defiance can be punishable, such kind of activities may be classified as a governmental function but if any other functions have been undertaken by a governmental agency then that would not come within the purview of a governmental function so as to term it as "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The modern political theorist generally defines the State as a special form of association (an association being a deliberately organized social group). It is distinguished from other forms of association by its purposes, by the methods it employs to carry out those purposes, by having territorial limits, and by its sovereignty. The primary purpose of the State is to maintain order and security. It does so by means of a system of law backed by force. The exercise of its jurisdiction is limited to a definite geographical area, but within that area the State is sovereign; that is to say, it has supreme and exclusive authority. (22). Strictly speaking the governmental function means the functions of an authoritative in nature and the disobedience thereof can entail punishment. Such activities cannot be undertaken by any private agency. Therefore, this Company is not discharging the functions of such type. Primarily the main objects of this Company are only to assess the projects, may be of government or may be of any foreign government or any other agency to provide them the consultancy services in execution of their projects. Therefore, the functions which are being discharged by this Company cannot be said to be akin to the nature of the governmental functions. The company has entered into a contract with the Government of Rajasthan for doing the survey in the Rajasthan Canal area, which was earlier done by the Irrigation Department of the Government. Therefore, the functions which are being discharged by this Company cannot be said to be akin to the nature of the governmental functions. The company has entered into a contract with the Government of Rajasthan for doing the survey in the Rajasthan Canal area, which was earlier done by the Irrigation Department of the Government. Simply because this job has been given to this Company that does not necessarily mean that it is a department of the Government or it is discharging the governmental function so as to cloth it as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The job of survey and investigation could be done by any private company/agency and simply because the Government of India has floated the Company for such investigation and survey that does not mean that it acquire the status of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Since the Government has invested the money, therefore, it has to have the supervisory control over its functioning and cannot allow the public exchequer to suffer any loss without any check. Therefore, in order to keep check on the activities of the Company, though it is to be regulated under the provisions of the Companies Act as well as through its Memorandum of Association and the Article of Association, the Government has kept a check over the funds of the Company. But the company is free to regulate its business and its business activities have not been checked. The company through its Board of Directors is free to enter into agreement and undertake the consultancy services by employing the employees for execution of such works contract. Therefore, the present Company cannot be said to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Notwithstanding the fact that its finances are being pooled by the Government and the Government has a supervisory control over this company but still the company is free to work and enter into agreement for doing the consultancy services and other works contracts. The main objectives of the Company as enumerated above are to essentially perform the technical consultancy in various development fields and such objectives of the Company by no stretch of imagination can be said to be essentially a governmental function. The main objectives of the Company as enumerated above are to essentially perform the technical consultancy in various development fields and such objectives of the Company by no stretch of imagination can be said to be essentially a governmental function. Therefore, it does not fall within the meaning of State as enumerated in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. (23). Since I have already upheld the preliminary objection of the respondents that the respondent no. 2 WAPCOS is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, I need not to examine the other questions that whether the contract of service of these persons is for fixed term and termination of their services amounts to retrenchment or not. These questions can be agitated before the competent labour court. So far as the question of regularisation of the services of these incumbents is concerned, since the respondent No. 2 WAPCO is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, no order for such regularisation can be made. (24). Thus, in the result, I uphold the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and hold that the respondent No. 2 Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd. is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. So far as the other matters are concerned, I do not want to express any opinion as the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of approaching the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, it will not be proper for me to express any opinion on the question as to whether the retrenchment of these persons is valid or not or whether it amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (25). Hence, this writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule A appended to this order have no merit and the same are dismissed.