The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition may not be maintainable against a private company if it is not discharging any public function or duties. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of contractual agreements in determining the legality of termination of services.

Per PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

By means of the present petition the petitioner who has been working as Welfare Officer in the respondent company (I.T.C. Ltd.) has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent company not to terminate his services w.e.f. February 8, 2007 and has also sought the quashing of the order dated November 9, 2006 (Annexure-l to the writ petition) with usual reliefs. A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 1 and 2 to prosecute the officers of the respondents company for acting in breach of the provisions contained in the Welfare Officers Rules has also been claimed.

2. The writ petition was heard at the admission stage itself finally. As agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties after exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits, it: is being decided finally.

3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

ITC Ltd., a company incorporated under:

Companies Act having Head Quarter at Kolkata, appointed the petitioner as Labour Welfare Officer in ITC Ltd., (hereinafter called as Company) at Saharanpur. The respondent, company carries on business of manufacture and sale of FMCG products including cigarettes. The petitioner was appointed as Labour Welfare Officer through the appointment letter dated June 13, 1986 and has, been working since then. The respondent• company by means of the impugned communication dated November 9, 2006 (Annexrue-1) informed the petitioner that in terms of clause 14(a) of the letter of employment dated June 13, 1986, his services with ITC Ltd. will stand terminated, as of closing hours of work on February 8, 2007.

4. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid communication/notice of termination the, present writ petition has been filed.

5. K.P. Agrawal, learned senior advocate assisted by Ms. Swati Rani Gupta contended that the services of the petitioner are governed by statutory provisions of service as contained in D.P. Factories Welfare Service Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Welfare Rules) and the appointment of the petitioner being statutory appointment, his services can be terminated only in accordance with the statutory provisions as contained under Welfare Rules. His contention is that the petitioner is holding a public office as his duties are not towards the activities of the respondent company but to look after the welfare of the workmen and discharge the duties as contained in the Welfare Rules. He submitted that the office of the Welfare has been created under Section 49 of the Factories Act read with Welfare Rules framed under the foretasted Factories Act. The gist of the argument is that the post of Welfare Officer is a public/statutory office. Indisputably, the permission having not been sought for from the Labour Commissioner, the service of the petitioner cannot be terminated in the matter as it has been sought to be done by the impugned order.

6. In reply, S.P. Gupta, senior advocate, assisted by Yashwant Verma, submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent company is a public limited company and is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. The company is not discharging any public duty or function nor it is a State or an instrumentality of State. It is not under the financial control of the State or Central Government and it does not fall within the definition of State or instrumentality of State as understood under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On merits the notice of termination having been issued to the petitioner in the exercise of right conferred on it under clause 14(a) of the letter of appointment signed by the petitioner, no grievance can be raised by the petitioner at this stage. In other words, the submission is that the respondent company has invoked the right conferred on it in pursuance of the mutual agreement arrived at in between the parties. The exercise of the said right is not as a measure of punishment and as such the provisions of

weltare Kules ha