( 1 ) THREE important questions arise for consideration in these four writ petitions. They are :

1. Whether, (i) The Bharat Farth Movers Limited; (ii) The Hindustan Machine Tools Limited; (iii) The Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited, which are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1/1956) and are Government companies as defined in S. 617 of the said Act, fall within the meaning of the word 'state' as defined in Art. 12 of the constitution of India ?

( 2 ) WHETHER (i) Rule 17. 2 of The Bharat Earth Movers Limited Service Rules;

(ii) Rule 20. 1 of the Hindustan machine Tools (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules; (iii) Rule 2. 21 of the Karnataka Agro-Industries Corporation Limited (Recruitment and promotion) Rules; and

(iv) Regulation 25 (2) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Rules' O providing for termination of service of its permanent employees, by a simple notice, at any time, without fixing any period of service or age after which such power could be exercised, as also the orders of termination of service made under impugned rules, are violative of Art. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India ?

( 3 ) EVEN if the Rule is valid, whether the order of termination made against each of the petitioners is valid ?

2. Briefly stated the facts in each of these cases are as follows : (1) WP No. 14686/1981 : (i) The petitioner joined service as a Stenographer on the establishment of the Rail-Coach Division of the Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML for short) which is a public-sector undertaking established by and functioning under administrative control of the Government of India. He was promoted as a Store Keeper on 3-6-1970. He was thereafter promoted as Head Store Keeper on 18-7-1971. He was further promoted as Assistant Stores officer on 31-7-1980. In this promotional post, he was placed on probation for one year. By an order made on 1-7-1981, the service of the petitioner were terminated with effect from the same date under clause 17 (2) of the BEML Service Regulations.

(ii) The allegations made in the petition are as follows : The petitioner was elected as the General secretary of the BEML Association on 24-6-1977. He was again re-elected to the same office for 1979-80. As General Secretary of the Association, which was the only trade union in existence on the establishment, the petitioner, in the discharge of his duty as a leader was espousing the causes of the employees and he was representing the workmen and placing their legitimate grievances before the management. The Management of the BEML declined to implement certain terms of settlement entered into between them and workmen, and duly registered under the Industrial Disputes Act. With the result, the relationship between him and the management got strained. An industrial dispute arose between the workmen of the public sector industries in bangalore and their branches elsewhere and the management. The employees went on strike which lasted for nearly three months commencing from 26th December, 1980 till 14-3-1981. Thereafter the management declared a lock-out on 7-5-1981 till 2-6-1981. During the period of strike, the petitioner was one of the convenors of the Joint Action Front formed by the employees to the public-sector industries in Bangalore. The management entertained grouse against the petitioner, as he was spearheading the workers agitation. The strike and the subsequent lock-out came to an end on 2-6-1981. Thereafter the services of the petitioner have been terminated as a measure of penalty by way of victimisation invoking the impugned Rule 17. 2 of the BEML rules. This is also evident from the fact that three of his juniors namely, G. Purushotham Reddy, balasubramanyam and Srinivasa Murthy, were retained in service, whereas the services of the petitioner were terminated.

(iii) In the petition, the petitioner had prayed for quashing the order termin