Court rules CUPGL as 'State' under Article 12 but denies reinstatement in employment termination challenge

The court concluded that CUPGL is considered a 'State' under Article 12 but dismissed the writ petitions challenging the termination of employment. Despite finding the termination order not illegal, as employment terms were contractual and not governed by statutory provisions, the court denied the relief of reinstatement. The court emphasized that in cases of contractual employment, the usual remedy for wrongful termination is damages rather than reinstatement. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions on the basis of lack of merit.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether CUPGL can be said to be 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the ConstitutionRs.
2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the matter of termination of service of an employee of CUPGL when terms and conditions are not governed by any statutory provisions and are purely within the realm of contractRs.
3. Whether relief of reinstatement can be granted to petitioners when terms and conditions of employment are not governed by statutory provisions, if the order of termination is said to be vitiated in lawRs.
4. Whether the order of termination is illegal or bad in lawRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether CUPGL can be said to be 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the ConstitutionRs.

The court examined whether CUPGL qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12, considering its shareholding and control. CUPGL, a joint venture of BPCL, GAIL, and IGL, is functionally controlled by these public sector companies. BPCL and GAIL, being Central Government companies, have pervasive control over CUPGL. The court referenced the criteria established in previous judgments, including the extent of government control and the nature of functions performed by the entity. Given that BPCL and GAIL hold equal representation in CUPGL's Board, and the pervasive control by these entities, the court concluded that CUPGL is an instrumentality of the State and thus falls within the ambit of 'other authorities' under Article 12.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the matter of termination of service of an employee of CUPGL when terms and conditions are not governed by any statutory provisions and are purely within the realm of contractRs.

The court noted that even if CUPGL is considered a 'State', the employment terms are governed by a contract and not by statutory provisions. The petitioners' employment was not governed by any statutory rules but by a contract of service. The court reiterated that specific performance of a contract of personal service is generally not enforceable under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Thus, the writ petition challenging the termination of service based on contractual terms is not maintainable.

3. Whether relief of reinstatement can be granted to petitioners when terms and conditions of employment are not governed by statutory provisions, if the order of termination is said to be vitiated in lawRs.

The court emphasized that in cases where employment is purely contractual and not governed by statutory provisions, the remedy for wrongful termination is typically damages rather than reinstatement. The court cited various precedents where reinstatement was not granted in cases of contractual employment. Given that the petitioners' employment was not governed by statutory rules, the court held that reinstatement could not be granted even if the termination was found to be wrongful.

4. Whether the order of termination is illegal or bad in lawRs.

The petitioners argued that the termination was punitive and violated principles of natural justice, as they were not given a proper opportunity to defend themselves. The respondents contended that an independent inquiry was conducted, and the termination was based on the findings and loss of confidence. The court noted that the terms and conditions of employment were not challenged as being arbitrary or violative of Article 14. Given the contractual nature of the employment and the absence of statutory governance, the court found no grounds to declare the termination illegal or to grant reinstatement.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that CUPGL is a 'State' under Article 12 but dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds that the employment was contractual and not governed by statutory provisions. The relief of reinstatement was not granted, and the petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.

---