JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J.:—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 1, 1992 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 581 of 1992 affirming the order dated April 24. 1992 passed by the single Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 2385 of 1992. The respondent, Sri T. Prasad, was appointed as a Personnel Officer of the appellant-Company registered under the Companies Act, on June 18, 1990. Initially, he was placed on probation and on April 20, 1991, his service was confirmed by the said Company. It was inter alia provided in the terms of appointment that the services of the respondent could be terminated with a months notice or salary in lieu thereof. On October 8, 1991 the employment of the said respondent was terminated by giving a months salary in lieu of notice. The said respondent thereafter questioned the legality and validity of the order of termination by filing a Writ Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It was contended that he was assured at the time of appointment by the General Manager of the Company that he would be promoted as Assistant Manager (Personnel) after confirmation and his pay would be fixed at par with other Assistant Manager working in the organisation @ Rs. 4500/ - per month and he would be provided with transport from Gudur to the factory every day. But after confirmation, such benefits were not given to him and as he insisted for implementing the assurances, his employment was unjustly terminated on October 8, 1991. The said respondent Also contended that by virtue of his appointment as Personnel Officer he had to took after the welfare of the labourers employed in the factory. Accordingly, his appointment must be held to be statutory appointment under S. 49 of the Factories Act. Hence, his service conditions are governed by the Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder and the termination of the services of Labour Welfare Officer cannot be made without concurrence of the Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh. As such the termination made in breach of the said statutory provision, must be held to be illegal and void.

3. In the writ proceedings, the appellant, Shyam Vinyals Ltd., raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition inter alia on the ground that Sri Prasad was not appointed as a Labour .Welfare Officer under S. 49 of the Factories Act and that there was no statutory requirement of appointing any Labour Welfare Officer by the appellant under the Factories Act. Hence, there was no question of breach of the Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder as sought to be contended. Secondly, the Company was not a State under Art. 12 of the Constitution. As such the writ petition was not maintainable for challenging the termination of service of Sri Prasad and the termination of service was a matter of contract between the Company and its employee.

4. The learned single Judge, however, allowed the Writ Petition inter alia on the finding that though Sri Prasad was appointed as Assistant Personnel Officer he was required to look after the welfare of the workers, he should be deemed to be a Labour Welfare Officer and as such the provisions of S. 49 of the Factories Act were attracted. The learned single Judge. further held that the employment of the writ petitioner was clothed with a duty of public nature. As such, the writ petition was maintainable for challenging the termination of service.

5. The appellant-Company thereafter preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the said High Court being Writ Appeal No. 581 of 1992. The appeal Court, however, held that the Company was not an instrumentality of the State Government and was not a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. The Court of Appeal, however, held that although there was no statutory requirement to appoint Sri Prasad as a Labour Welfare Officer but Sri Prasad was also requ