( 1 ) HEARD Shri Shesh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Bharti Sapru appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the provisions of Standing Order 25 as ultra vires. A further prayer has been made praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12. 5. 1995 Annexure-7 to the writ petition terminating the services of the petitioner.

( 3 ) PETITIONERs case in the writ petition is that respondent No. 3 Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. is a registered company under the provisions of Companies Act. 1956. Petitioner claims that he was appointed as Sales representative vide order dated 24. 8. 1972. Petitioner states that looking to his meritorious service, he was given promotion to Officer Grade-III vide letter dated October. 1989. Petitioner states that respondent No. 3 is a company and is governed by the certified standing Orders certified under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 1946. Copy of the certified standing orders has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

( 4 ) STANDING Order 25 provides for termination of service of workman. Petitioner in the writ petition has challenged Standing Order 25 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has further been stated in the writ petition that Certifying Officer has acted illegally in certifying the Standing Order 25. It has been stated that the company issued an order dated 12. 5. 1995 terminating the petitioners service. It is claimed that the termination order amount to retrenchment as the Management has retained several junior persons. It has been claimed that provisions of Standing Order is in violation of provisions of Section 6n of the Industrial disputes Act. 1947. The petitioner has prayed in the writ petition for quashing of the termination order and also prayed for declaring Standing Order 25 as ultra fires.

( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In the counter-affidavit in paragraph 4. It has been stated at the very outset that writ petition is not maintainable against a private company. It has been stated in para 4 that Geep industrial Syndicate Limited is not a statutory corporation or is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has been further staled that petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy under Section 4k of the industrial Disputes Act. It has been further stated that petitioner can apply to Certifying Officer under Section 10 of Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act. 1946 if he is aggrieved in any manner by any terms of the Standing Order. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that petitioner has himself tendered his voluntarily resignation vide letter dated 12. 5. 1995 which fact has been concealed in the writ petition. It has been further stated that despite petitioners resignation the company has given the petitioner 9 months salary in lump sum in order that the petitioner may tide over the period taken in finding out the alternative employment. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed reiterating the contents of the writ petition. It has been stated that since the writ petition challenges the Standing Order, hence the writ petition is maintainable. It has been stated that no voluntarily resignation was given by the petitioner and after serving the termination order the contesting respondents forced the petitioner to submit his resignation.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the respondents at the very outset raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 raised the following preliminary objections :

(1) That respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is a private company and no writ can be issued against a private company by this Honble Court exercising its j