A multinational company cannot be classified as an 'instrumentality of the State' under Article 12 without pervasive control or public duty imposed by the State.

1. Chief question falling for consideration is whether the respondent No. 3 Meinhart Singapore Pvt. Ltd., a Multinational Company, which has established place of business within India, under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, is an "instrumentality of the State" or "other authority" under Art.12 of the Constitution of India?

2. The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur respondent No. 1 herein entered into agreement with Meinhart Singapore Pvt. Ltd. respondent No. 3 herein, a multinational company having established place of business within India, under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 on
09.11.2006 for construction of sanitary sewerage system in Bilaspur city covering an area of 30.42 sq. km.. The petitioners were appointed as Engineers by order dated 05.09.2011 for providing consultancy service for planning, designing and supervision of execution of sanitary sewerage system for Bilaspur city till the completion of project, on a gross remuneration of 30,000 per month. The said Company / respondent No. 3 did not pay salary to the petitioners since November, 2014, for which they have filed this writ petition stating inter alia that though they have worked from November, 2014 to August, 2015, yet the said respondent had not paid salary to them for last nine months despite several reminders claiming that salary were made to the said Company / respondent No. 3 & 5, therefore writ(s) in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents including official respondents to release the salary for the aforesaid period.

3. The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur / respondent No. 1 has not filed any return and has raised an objection that the Municipal Corporation has not been impleaded as party in the writ petition and the petitioners are employees of respondents No. 3 & 4, and as such the respondent No. 1 not being the employer of the petitioners has no legal responsibility to make payment of salary to the petitioners and it is the obligation of their employer respondents No. 3 and 4 to make payment of their salary. Rights and liabilities, between the parties are governed by the agreement entered into by them and as such there is an arbitration clause (Clause - 17) in the agreement and present writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable in law and deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.

4. Respondents No. 3 & 4 have filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioners were employed by the respondent No. 3 for execution of work as per terms of the contract executed between Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and the respondent No. 3 for construction and supervision of the sanitary sewerage system vide agreement dated 06.11.2006. It has further been pleaded that Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur has imposed penalty of 2,03,51,000/- against respondents No. 3 & 4 illegally and therefore the salary claimed by the petitioners could not be paid in time to them. Alternatively it has also been pleaded that primary responsibility of payment of wages to the workmen is that of the principal employer i.e. respondent No. 1 / Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. In sum and substance respondents No. 3 & 4 have supported the case of the petitioners herein.

5. Ms. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though respondent No. 3 is a multinational company established a place of business within India under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged inter alia for providing service in the nature of integrated engineering planning and management in the area of civil / structural engineering and