Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 229 (CAL)

Mithai Lal Passi v. C. E. S. C. Ltd.

2003-05-07

Bhaskar Bhattacharya

body2003
Order Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. The only question that falls for determination in this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether an employee of the CESC Ltd., a licensee under Indian Electricity Act, can invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Court being dissatisfied with the order of termination of service. 2. Mr. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of this writ application has placed strong reliance upon two decisions of the Supreme Court. 3. First, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Krishnamacharyulu & Ors. vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & Anr., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 571 . In the said case some laboratory assistants of private college moved the writ application before the High Court seeking equal pay for equal work. The High Court turned down such application asking the petitioners to approach the Industrial Tribunal. It appears from paragraph 4 of the said judgment that in that case executive instructions were issued by the Government conferring on those persons right to claim the pay scale so as to be on a par with the Government employee and by filing such application those persons sought to enforce such right. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the writ application is maintainable. In my view, the principle laid down in the said decision cannot benefit an employee of CESC who is not in any way conferred with any right similar to that of a Government employee in the matter of employment. Thus the writ application is not maintainable against the employee /CESC challenging the decision of termination of service. 4. The other decision relied upon by Mr. Verma is the one of Supreme Court in the case of Hirday Narain vs. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, reported in AIR 1971 SC 33 . In the said case the question was whether a writ application at the time of final hearing could be dismissed on the ground of existence of an efficacious alternative remedy by way of section 35 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court held that once the writ application has been entertained, at the time of final hearing such application should not be dismissed on such ground. 5. By relying upon such decision Mr. The Supreme Court held that once the writ application has been entertained, at the time of final hearing such application should not be dismissed on such ground. 5. By relying upon such decision Mr. Verma tried to impress upon this Court that at the time of final hearing this Court should not reject this application asking the petitioner to approach the regular Civil Court. I am afraid I am not at all impressed of such submission of Mr. Verma. This is not a case of refusal to entertain the writ application on the ground of existence of efficacious alternative remedy. But in this case the CESC authority, the employer, cannot be said to be 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of challenging an order of termination of service of its employee. Thus the writ application itself is not maintainable. 6. Such being the position, I find that this writ application is not maintainable for the purpose of disputing the correctness of the order of termination of service of an employee by the CESC authority. I make it clear that I have not gone into merit and I have dismissed this application only on the ground that this application is not maintainable. 7. There will no order as to costs. 8. Xerox certified copy of this be made available to the parties within a week from date, if applied for. Writ petition dismissed.