This writ petition is directed against an order of termination of the petitioner's service as the Financial Director of M/s. Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. dated 22nd August 1986.

2. The issues raised are important as well as interesting as questions of law Whilst the petitioner contended that the case is fully covered by the decision of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brajanath Ganguly reported in (1986) 3 SCC 156 and as such the termination order is bad simplicitor and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. The respondents contended, however, that no relief can be granted to the petitioner inter alia for (at Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. cannot be termed to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitutions; (b) assuming Andrew Yule & Co. be termed to be an authority, the writ petition cannot succeed by reason of restrictions in regard to the assumption of jurisdiction by the writ Court in a private law field as compared to that of a public law field which has not been noticed in Central Inland's decision (supra), though sufficient reliance on that score can be found from the decisions of the Supreme Court in LIC v. Escorts Ltd. reported in (1986) 1 SC