JUDGMENT :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned senior Counsel Sri C.R. Sridharan for learned counsel for appellants Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, first respondent in person, Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General for second respondent and Mrs. Anjali Agarwal, learned counsel for third respondent.

2. Before recording rival contentions, the litigative history leading to the filing of this writ appeal is noted hereunder:

2.1. First respondent herein was appointed as Manager Grade-III by proceedings dated 2.3.3007 in the Indian Immunological Limited (for short IIL); he was promoted as Manager Grade-II with effect from 1.4.2013 and by circular orders dated 20.3.2014 he was given full charge of Marketing, HR, Training and Development of entire marketing work force. It appears, problems mounted on first respondent some time from November, 2014. On 25.11.2014, first respondent was asked to vacate his cabin and to share office space with a far junior to him. His application for casual leave on 26.11.2014 was rejected. He has escalated his grievances in the form of a representation dated 25.11.2014 and mail dated 22.12.2014. Instead of attending to his grievances, an office order was issued on 2.1.2015 transferring the first respondent to Distribution Department at Ooty in state of Tamilnadu. On some health issues, he was admitted in hospital on 5.1.2015. A show cause notice was issued to him on 6.1.2015 alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent without prior permission or intimation. After discharge from the Hospital, he submitted his reply on 11.1.2015 to the show cause notice. However, by letter dated 16.1.2015, he was asked to vacate the quarter by 15.2.2015. It appears, he was again admitted in hospital on 23.1.2015 and while he was taking treatment, on 24.1.2015 order terminating his services with one month notice was issued by invoking Clause 18 of the contract of employment.

2.2. The order of termination dated 24.1.2015 was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.4159 of 2015 wherein, the appellants herein raised the plea of maintainability of the writ petition on two grounds. Firstly, employer IIL is a corporate entity, not involved in discharge of any public duty, therefore, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Secondly, termination was passed as per the terms of employment governing his appointment, therefore, there cannot be any adjudication on the validation of termination order in a writ petition.

2.3. It appears, before learned single Judge elaborate submissions were made on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition and also justifying the action of termination of first respondent. This Court framed following two points for consideration.

(1) Whether the second respondent company is a ‘State’ or ‘other authority’ in order to be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? and

(2) If so, whether the order of termination of service of the petitioner passed on 21.04.2015 is valid or not?.

2.4. On thorough discussion on the subject of jurisdiction of writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, learned single Judge of this Court held as under :

“In the instant case, we are examining whether the subsidiary company is an ‘authority’ amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the provisions of NDDB Act and the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the second respondent clearly shows the control exercised by the holding company in the affairs of the subsidiary company. Thus, it can be concluded that the holding company is having financial, functional and administrative domination under the supervision of the Central Government, though the subsidiary company is being managed by the Board of its own with its own Memorandum and Articles of Association regulating its affairs. In view of this, the second respondent is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

2.5. Lea