This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the legality and validity of Annexure 6, the notice dated 8.2.93 issued by the Chairman of Assam Co-operative Jute Mills Ltd, Silghat, Annexure 6 is quoted below : " Your service are no longer require by the mill, so you are hereby released from the services of the mill wef 8th February, 1993 in terms of the clause No.3 of the agreement contract attached with your appointment letter No.JME/in/90-91/4-06 dated 12.3.91, we now hereby give you notice wef 8.2.93 and with three months basic salary in lieu of notice period. So, you are hereby asked to handover the charges of the office to Shri Golap Chandra Bora, Sr. Assistant Labour Officer in presence of the Manager (Production), also handover the mill's quarter occupied by you to the Sr. Supervisor (Civil) and dues payable to the mill if any to the mill's Cashier. Please inform us in writing your legal dues if any, which will be paid form the mill office." 2. The .validity and legality of this Annexure is challenged that this is violative of clause 3 of the Agreement, that is Annexure 5 to the writ application. Annexure 5 is quoted below : "An agreement made 1st day of April, 1991, between the Assam Co-operative Jute Mills Ltd., having its registered office at Silghat, Nagaon (hereinafter called the Mill) of the one part and Shri JitendraNath Barthakur hereinafter called the employee) son of late H. Botthakur of the other part, whereby it is mutually agreed and declared as follows: 1. The employee will serve the Mill as a Senior LWO for a period of three years from the 1.4.91 and undertakes and agrees that: (a) he will devote his whole time and attention to his duties and will be punctual, faithful and assiduous in performing thereof and promptly obey all commands and directions of his superiors for the time being. (b) He will not be engaged directly or indirectly in any other undertaking, business or employment whatsoever nor at any time improperly divulge informations or secrets acquired by or entrusted to him during his service hereunder. (b) He will not be engaged directly or indirectly in any other undertaking, business or employment whatsoever nor at any time improperly divulge informations or secrets acquired by or entrusted to him during his service hereunder. (c) That if he shall commit any breach of this agreement or misconduct himself or in the event of his being incapable of performing his duties or in the event of his becoming involved in debt or insolvent he shall be liable to dismissal without notice. 2. In consideration of such services as aforesaid the mill undertake : (a) To pay the employee a basic monthly salary of Rs. 1300.00 for the 1st year. Rs.1350.00 for the 2nd year. Rs. 1400.00 for the 3rd year Plus such allowance and benefits as the mill may from time to time in its absolute discretion determine and vary. (b) To made him eligible to become a member of the Provident Fund institution applicable to him. (c) To grant him 25 days EL, 4 days CL and 10 days H.L. with pay for each-completed year of service. 3. Either party shall be at liberty to determine this agreement at any time upon giving to the other three months notice in writing to the effect or three months basic salary in lieu. In witness whereof the said parties of these presents set their hands. Illegible Illegible Witness to the signature of Employee Illegible Illegible Witness to the signature of Chairman." 3. It is stated that the agreement in question is confined to the service pf the petitioner as a Senior Labour Welfare Officer and the petitioner it appears is working under mill and as such the service of the petitioner cannot be terminated from the mill itself. It is further stated that there was no allegation of misconduct and as such clause 3 cannot be invoke to terminate the services of the petitioner. Further no simultaneous payment was made along with the notice and on that count the termination is bad. 4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is stated inter alia as follows : 1. That the Assam Co-operative Jute Mills Ltd. which is a co-operative society has not been impleaded as party-respondent and as such in the absence of the non-joinder of necessary party this writ application is to be rejected. 2. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is stated inter alia as follows : 1. That the Assam Co-operative Jute Mills Ltd. which is a co-operative society has not been impleaded as party-respondent and as such in the absence of the non-joinder of necessary party this writ application is to be rejected. 2. The respondents are not amenable to writ jurisdiction and it is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 3. That the petitioner was informed to collect his dues including the salary in lieu of notice by notice dated 8.2.93 and the petitioner did not collect the same only for taking advantage of non-receipt of the salary in lieu of notice. The question of misconduct is absolutely irrelevant as the termination was not punitive in nature. 5. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed. 6. I have heard Mr. S. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. PC Deka, learned counsel for respondents. 7. Let us now first take up the question- of non-joinderv The admitted position in this case is that the Chairman of Assam Co-operative Jute Mills Ltd., and the Managing Director of Assam Co-operative Jute Mills Ltd. were added as parties. The petitioner was an employee of Assam Co-operative Jute Mills Ltd., Silghat, Nagaon and it is a body corporate and can sue and be sued in its own name. It is a society registered under the Co-operative Society Act, 1949. 8. Mr. Deka in this connection place before me the-following decisions : AIR 1976 SC 2538 (The State of Kerala vs. The General Managers Southern Railway, Madras). That matter arose out of a suit against the Railways and it was contended that as the Union of India has not been impleaded as a defendant to the suit, the suit against the Railways was not maintainable. The Supreme. Court pointed out that the Railway administration or its General Manager cannot be legal entity or a corporate body and juridical person to represent the Railway administration as such in a suit and the suit filed by the State of Kerala was dismissed. 9. In this case in the absence of the Assam Co-operative Jute Mills Ltd. no relief can be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as if the relief is granted the jute mill shall be affected. 10. The next submission of Mr. 9. In this case in the absence of the Assam Co-operative Jute Mills Ltd. no relief can be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as if the relief is granted the jute mill shall be affected. 10. The next submission of Mr. Deka is that the jute mill in question is not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, Mr. Deka place reliance in 1993 (2) GLJ 51 (Sahabuddin Choudhury vs. State of Assam & others) where the Full Bench of this Court in para 14 pointed out as follows: "Bye laws do not indicate any pervasive Government control over the functioning of the finance of the society. It is not indicated that the society is dependent wholly or mainly on financial assistance of the Government. The society is naturally subject to the provisions of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act and, therefore, in some respects subject to jurisdiction of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the State Government. But this is the case in respect of all the co-operative societies in the State. It cannot he any stretch of imagination be declared that all co-operative societies in the State of Assam are instrumentalities of State, without reference to the Constitution, status, nature and functioning of each society." In the writ application there is no material to show that the Government has the pervasive control over the affairs of the society. In that view of that matter also, no writ can be issued against the jute mill: But I am not deciding that question in this case as no proper material was placed by the petitioner to decide this question. This matter is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case. This finding I am arriving at on the basis of the materials placed before me in this particular case. Further it is found from Annexure 5 to the writ application that the services of the petitioner was terminated by exercising the powers under the agreement in question and it is not punitive in nature. 11. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.