Employees of a Government company are not holders of civil posts under the Union or a State Government and, therefore, Article 311 (2) of the Constitution does not apply to them.

( 1 ) COMMON questions of law have been raised by these two petitions brought by two employees of the Durgapur Steel Plant appertaining to the Hindusthan Steel Ltd.

( 2 ) IN C. R. 1330, the Petitioner was the General Manager, who was appointed on 9. 4. 65 by the order of the President of India, which is at Annexure A. The Petitioner alleges that in the first week of July, 1967, he was verbally asked to resign by Sri Rao, Chairman of the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. , (Respondent No. 4 ). On the 17th July, he was handed over the impugned letter at Ann. B, by the Chairman. This letter states that - (a) Government ?have decided to terminate your services. . . . . . with effect from the forenoon of the 19th July, 1967?; (b) The Petitioner had, however, the option of submitting resignation, which would be readily granted; (c) The Petitioner might also terminate the contract with the Hindusthan Steel by sending a notice with a leave application before the 19th July, in which case he would be granted all the leave that was due to him and thereafter his services would stand terminated on the expiry of that leave or on the expiry of three months from 19. 7. 68, whichever was later.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner was asked to intimate his option as to the three alternatives aforesaid, and was also told that the Relieving Officer would take over charge from the Petitioner on 19. 7. 68 and at that time deliver to the Petitioner the formal order of the President. The Petitioner came to Court the next day and obtained this Rule, challenging the validity of the impugned letter.

( 4 ) THE Petitioner's case is that the Hindusthan Ltd. , is a Government Company and that he holds a civil post under the Union of India, so that his services cannot be terminated without complying with the requirements of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and that if Paragraph 97 (a) of its Articles of Association says anything to the contrary, the said Article should be held to be ultra vires Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.

( 5 ) IN C. R. 1864 (W)/67, the Petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Superintendent, Coke Ovens Department, on a contract of November, 1957, for a period of 5 years. The Petitioner's case is that that contract has been renewed and was still subsisting at the material time and is due to expire on 8. 2. 68. In the year 1965, he was promoted b y the General Manager to the post of Chief Superintendent. He was served with the Chairman's letter dated 17. 7. 67 (Annexure D), which is in substance similar to that served upon the Petitioner in the other case, and he was asked to hand over charge to Sri Mohan on 19. 7. 67. Annexure E is the formal order upon Sri Mohan to take over charge from the Petitioner, with copy to the Petitioner. He was also served with an undated order at Annexure E1. The facts are thereafter complicated by the fact that this Petitioner exercised his option of tendering resignation. He offered resignation 'provisionally' by the letter at Annexure F, and prayed for granting full leave due to him. The resignation was accepted by the Chairman by the letter at Annexure H, of 22. 7. 67, which gave him the leave due from 19. 7. 67 and stated that the resignation would take effect from the expiry of that leave. The Petitioner changed his mind and by the letter at Annexure I, issued through his lawyer, he stated that his letter of resignation was obtained and that he had not tendered resignation; he also urged that his services had not been terminated in terms of his letter of appointment.

( 6 ) BY the letter at Annexure K, dated 11. 8. 67, the General Manager wrote that the undated order at Annexure E1 was withdrawn and instead, he was granted leave for three months from 19. 7. 67 to 18. 10. 67 and that his resignation would be effective from the date of expiry of that leave.

( 7 ) IN response to the Petitioner's representation by the letter dated 19. 8. 67, the Petitioner was informed by the Senior P