JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This judgment has been pronounced through video conferencing.

Brief Background

2. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner seeking appropriate writ/order or direction for setting aside the letter dated 19th June, 2020 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the services of the Petitioner were terminated. A total of four writ petitions have been heard together by this Court. The same were filed by four regular/permanent employees working with the Apparel Training and Design Centre ('ATDC') at various positions such as Junior Assistant, Senior Principal, Regional Manager and Deputy Assistant.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has raised issues of maintainability on the ground that a writ petition would not lie against ATDC as it is not 'State' under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and is also not 'Other Authority' as it does not perform a public function. Vide order dated 17th August 2020, the Apparel Export Promotion Council (hereinafter "AEPC"), of which the Respondent ATDC is a part, was impleaded as Respondent no.2. Various affidavits and documents have been filed on record by all parties. Detailed written submissions along with copies of all judgments relied upon have also been filed. All counsels consented for the matters to be finally heard as recorded in order dated 3rd September 2020. The Court accordingly heard the counsels for the parties both on the question of maintainability as also on merits.

Submissions of the Petitioner

4. Ms. Makhija, ld. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner firstly relies upon the judgment of a ld. Single Judge of this Court rendered in the context of the AEPC. In the said judgment, being All India Garment Exporters Common Cause Guild And Ors v. UOI & Anr, [WP(C) 5093/ 1998 decided on 18 January, 2011, Delhi High Court], the Court held that the AEPC is performing a public function under the Exim Policy. Specific reliance was placed upon paragraphs 24, 25 and 30 of the said judgment. She submitted that though this judgment has been subsequently considered by the ld. Division Bench and 3, the over ruling only related to the merits of the petition i.e., in respect of the regulation of membership to the AEPC. On the question of public function of AEPC, the ld. Division Bench judgment was silent. She further submitted that the AEPC is a parent organisation of the ATDC. AEPC functions as a monopolistic body and the ATDC is nothing but a unit of the AEPC which is performing a public function.

5. Ms. Makhija, thereafter, took this Court through the various clauses of the Memorandum of Association, (hereinafter "MOA") and the Articles of Association, (hereinafter "AOA") to show that the AEPC is fully controlled by the Central Government. Reliance was placed upon clauses 23, 24, 36, 26(5)b,42,81, 83, 88, 89, 100 (of the AOA of the AEPC). She submitted that the executive committee is appointed by the Government. There are various Government nominees. The entire funding is from the Government. The executives and employees are appointed after the prior approval of the Central Government as per clause 89. On the basis of all these clauses she submitted that the AEPC is fully controlled by the Government itself. The powers of the Central Government under clause 101 are extremely wide. The entire functioning is under the Government. She, thereafter, relied upon the minutes of meeting to show that almost all the AEPC meetings are presided over by the Government nominees.

6. Now coming to the ATDC, it was submitted by Ms. Makhija that in the balance sheet of the AEPC, specific contributions were made to set up ATDC. Reliance was placed upon the balance sheets (Income and Expenditure Account) dated 31st March 1996, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 wherein the contributions made to ATDC were specifically recorded. She then relied upon the Statement of review of working of the AEPC during the year 2008-09 w