Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 419-426 OF 2004

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. & Ors.

…Appellants

Versus

Partha Sarathi Sen Roy & Ors.

…Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 926 OF 2013

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

1.

These appeals have been preferred against the impugned

judgments and orders of the High Court of Calcutta dated 30.1.2002

and 24.12.2002 in FMA No. 301/2001, CO. 2038/1993, WP. Nos.

778/1992, 2613, 2798 & 3169/2000, 1109/1998 and 1739/1996, by

which the Calcutta High Court by a majority decision held that the

Page 2

JUDGMENT

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. – appellant, is a State within the purview of

Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to

as, the ‘Constitution’), and is thus, amenable to writ jurisdiction.

2.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are:

A.

The appellant is a public limited company incorporated under

the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The shares of the appellant company

were originally held by Indo-Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd., Life

Insurance Corporation, Unit Trust of India, General Insurance

Corporation and its subsidiaries, Nationalised Banks and also by the

public. Subsequently, in 2001 its majority equity shares, i.e. 61.8% of

its shareholding, which was held by IBP Co. Ltd., was transferred to

Balmer Lawrie Investments Ltd. (BLIL), a Govt. company in which

59% shares are held by the government.

B.

The appellant company carries on business in diverse fields

through various Strategic Business Units (SBUs). None of these SBUs

have monopoly in any business. The said SBUs are involved in the

manufacturing of packing materials, i.e. steel drums and LPG

cylinders, grease and lubricants. They also provide air freight services,

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

ocean freight services, and project cargo management. They operate

under a broader segment classified as ‘Logistic Services’, providing

space and scope for segregation, storage and aggregation of

containerized cargo, i.e. an infrastructural service carried on outside

the port premises for handling, loading/unloading and storage of

containerized import, as well as export cargo. The appellant company

also deals with leather chemicals and tea blending and packaging.

C.

The respondents-employees joined the services of the company

at different times. However, for the purpose of deciding this case it

would be convenient to take up the facts presented by respondent,

Partha Sarathi Sen Roy.

The said respondent joined the appellant – company in May

1975 as a Management Trainee, and was later on confirmed vide order

dated 1.6.1976 as an officer in Grade-III, subject to the terms and

conditions mentioned in the letter of confirmation w.e.f. 20.5.1976.

He had previously worked in different branches of the company in

Dubai, the United Arab Emirates etc. as an Accountant-cum-

Administrative Officer. His services were terminated vide order dated

27.2.1981, in view of Clause 11(a) of the letter of appointment which

provided that the company would have a right, which would be

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

exercised at its sole discretion, to terminate the services of such

employees by giving them three calendar months’ notice in writing,

without assigning any reason for such decision. The respondent

challenged the said termination order by filing writ petition (C.R. No.

1562 (W) of 1981) in the High Court of Calcutta, praying for the

issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing that the said termination

order be quashed.

D.

The appellant company contested the said writ petition

contending that it was not an authority within the meaning of Article

12 of the Constitution, and therefore was not amenable to writ

jurisdiction. The terms and conditions of contractual rights and

obligations could therefore, not be enforced