( 1 ) ). Rule. Service of rule waived by Ms. Kathaben Gajjar Ld. AGP as instructed by Mr. D. A. Bambhania Ld. Govt. Solicitor for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. K. S. Nanavati L. A. for respondent No. 4 Mr. M. R. Anand L. A. for respondent No. 5 and Mr. T. R. Mishra L. A. for respondent No. 6.

( 2 ) ). The petitioner a registered trade union alleging to have majority of the members has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for obtaining various reliefs inter alia the reliefs with regard to making reference to the Industrial Tribunal in pursuance to failure report dated 3-4-1995 to initiate proceedings under the Code of Discipline for recognition of the petitioner-union in response to letter dated 28-4-1995 take immediate action and proceedings against respondent No. 4 for adopting unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2 (r) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act to quash and set aside 11 dismissal orders produced at Annexure-Z/12 collectively and to reinstate them in service with continuity and full back wages.

( 3 ) ). Out of the reliefs claimed in this petition as aforesaid admittedly only relief (C) with regard to quashing and setting aside all the 11 dismissal orders and reinstatement of the said 11 workmen as aforesaid is the only relief which is pressed into service as surviving on account of the fact that necessary reference has already been made.

( 4 ) ). The facts therefore move into a narrow compass. As against the petitioner-union the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 unions are also the registered trade unions and in contradistinction of the petitioner-union recognised unions. Annexure-Z/12 collectively indicates that the 11 workmen are dismissed with immediate effect that is to say on or around 12-6-1995 and 14-6-1995. It is not in dispute that no inquiry has been conducted and no opportunity before passing the order of dismissal had been given to the concerned workmen. The 45 charges of misconduct are contained in the orders of dismissal and they need not be elaborated here since it can hardly be disputed that this Court cannot go into the disputed question with regard to correctness or otherwise of the charges contained in the dismissal order. It would however be important to note that the workmen were served with the impugned orders of dismissal alongwith the cheques for the amount due and payable to the respective workmen.

( 5 ) ). Mr. K. S. Nanavati learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4-Company has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the respondent No. 4- Company being neither State nor any other authority as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The question therefore in short is whether this writ petition is maintainable.

( 6 ) ). Mr. V. B. Patel learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. H. K. Rathod learned Advocate for the petitioner-union has canvassed following submissions for entertaining this petition. Mr. Patel fairly conceded that the respondent No. 4 as such is neither a State nor an instrumentality of State and that it can also not be said to be other authority except as submitted. The submission then is that the respondent No. 4-Company as an employer is a different person while acting as an inquiry authority. The company in the latter capacity can be said to be a quasi-judicial authority constituted by the management of the company. In order to substantiate this argument Mr. Patel has relied upon Section 12-A of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 which provides for application of Model Standing Orders to an industrial establishment till upto the time the Standing Orders as finally certified under this Act come into operation under Section 7 of the Act in the concerned establishment. Model Standing Order No. 25 inter alia provides for inquiry being held before a workman is dismissed or removed from service as a result of charges of misconducts. Accord