( 1 ) SHRI Navin Sinha, learned counsel for respondents at the outset has taken a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable. He further contends that the service condition of the petitioners is not governed by any statutory rules or regulations. The relation between the benaras State Bank Ltd. and the petitioners is that of an employer- and employee which is purely contractual. He also contends that in the case of Writ Petition No. 30753 of 1992, decided on 1. 11. 1995, Vijay Kumar v. General Manager, Benaras State Bank Ltd. and others, Division bench of this Court had held that writ petition against the Benares State Bank Ltd. is not maintainable. He produces copy of the said judgment.

( 2 ) SHRI S. A. Gilani, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even though the Benaras state Bank Ltd. is not a statutory authority and as such it is not a State within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution, yet it discharges public duty and there is an element of public function in the Benares State Bank Ltd. and that if there is violation of principle of natural justice in relation to the condition of service of an employee, in that event,