The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are employees of the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Kerala, which is a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Government of Kerala, it is submitted, have pervasive control over the said company. The Minister for Agriculture is the Chairman of the company. The Agricultural Production Commissioner is also a member of the Board of Directors. There are two other nominees of the Government also among the Directors of the Board. The Chief Executive Officer of the company is also appointed by the Government. So, the petitioners submit, it is a company, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. These Writ Petitions are filed, challenging their termination from the service of the Company. The respondents would point out that the Government have only 23% shares in the company. Majority of the shares is held by the farmers organisations. Therefore, a preliminary objection is raised by the respondents that no writ will lie against the said company.

2. If a body is discharging public function, even if it is a non-statutory body, the same is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The above principle laid down by the English Courts in R. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (1967 (2) All E.R. 770)and R. v. Panel on Take overs (1987 (1) S.C.C. 645) has been adopted and followed by our Apex Court in Unnikrishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993 (1) S.C.C. 645). The Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Kerala is mainly engaged in the public function of promoting cultivation of vegetables and its marketing for the benefit of farmers and consumers of Kerala. It is sponsored and supported by the Government of Kerala. It is functioning under the guidance of the Minister for Agriculture and the Agricultural Production Commissioner. Therefore, it must be held to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court while discharging the above public function. So, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents cannot be accepted.

3. For mentioning the exhibits and other facts, Writ Petition (C) No. 11733/07 is treated as the main case.

Writ Petition (C) No. 11733/07

4. The petitioners in this Writ Petition are working in the cadre of Management Assistant/Service Assistant/Office Assistant. Initially, they were engaged on daily wage basis. They were appointed on regular basis by Exts.P-2 to P-5 orders on 28-1-2006. Their appointment was on probation for a period of one year. When they were going to complete the period of probation, by Ext.P-6 order dated 29-12-2006, their probation was extended for a period of three months. Later, they were terminated from service by the Chief Executive Officer on 30-3-2007. The termination orders were not served on them. When they received the copies of the same along with the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent company; they amended the Writ Petition, incorporating the challenge against the said orders also. The petitioners point out that the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent company decided to regularise them as per Ext.R-2(e) resolution dated 25-1-2006. It considered the recommendations made by the sub-committee, which was specifically constituted to consider the proposal for regularisation of the contract staff. The sub-committee consisting of the then Minister for Agriculture, the Agricultural Production Commissioner and the Chief Executive Officer, was of the view that all staff with one year experience can be regularised, subject to assessment of their performance. The Board of Directors considered the said recommendation and took a decision to regularise all contract staff, who have completed one year of service. It was also resolved to form a screening committee to evaluate the casual/daily wage employees. Those found suitable were to be appointed on contract basis initially. Pursuant to the above resolution, the petitioners submit, they were regularised. But, without notice, they w