ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The petitioner vide the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs:

“ a) issue appropriate writs, orders or directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents, their servants and agents to follow the procedure set forth in OCS Office Memorandum No.HQ/01-01/89-PE.I dated 11.12.1989 and Office Memorandum No. 1/61/89-P&PW (C) dated 18.07.1989; b) direct the Respondent No.2 not to terminate the services of any members of the Petitioner federation without adhering to the procedure set forth in Office Memorandum dated 11.12.1989 and Office Memorandum No. 1/61/89-P & PW (C)

dated 18.07.1989;

(c) pass such other and further orders/directions as may be deemed just and fit in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner („petitioner federation‟ hereinafter) is a group of former employees of the respondent no.2, namely, Tata Communications Limited („respondent Company‟ hereinafter). The respondent company had majority stake of Government of India and was under the aegis of Ministry of Telecommunication, Union of India.

3. In the year 2001, the share of the Government was sold, however, the employees were retained and subsequently, some of them were terminated by the respondent no.2 in the year 2008.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner federation, comprising the said employees who were terminated, has filed the instant petition.

5. During the course of proceedings, Mr. Nayar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Company objected to the maintainability of the instant petition submitting to the effect that in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India the respondent Company is a private entity and not a State, therefore, a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against it and prayed that the same may be dismissed at threshold and made the following submissions in this regard.

6. It is submitted that the test for inclusion of the entities as an instrumentality of the State has been well defined and the term „other authority‟ as provided for under Article 12 of the Constitution of India does not include private entities, therefore, a writ is not maintainable against the respondent Company.

7. It is submitted that the majority of the shareholdings of the respondent Company vests with the Tata group, whereby, the said group holds 58.86% shares, therefore, negating the possibility of government control in the respondent Company.

8. It is submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner has already been dealt with by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mr. R.S. Madireddy and Anr. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. reported in 2024 INSC 425, whereby, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court categorically held that a writ cannot be maintainable against an erstwhile Government run entity privatized subsequently.

9. It is submitted that the similar petition was filed by the similarly placed employees of the respondent Company before the Bombay High Court in S.V. Vasaikar & Ors. v. Union of India in W.P. (C) 5373/2002 which was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.

10. In view of the foregoing submissions, the learned senior counsel for the respondent Company submitted that the present petition, being non-

maintainable may be dismissed.

11. Per Contra, Mr. Manik Dogra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Federation vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned senior counsel contending to the effect that since the respondent Company is performing public functions, therefore, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

12. It is submitted that the petitioner has sought the main relief against the respondent no. 1, i.e., Union of India, as the said respondent had promised the retainment of the employees, therefore, the instant writ is maintainable.

13. It is submitted that a writ is maintainable against an entity if the claim of the employee is with respect to the inter