The High Court · 2025

nstitution of lndia praying that in the therewith, the High Court maY be ne more particularly in the nature of a (i) declare the proceedings dated- ccepting the resignation is illegal and continue the petitioner in service with l.A. NO:'l OF2015 MP. NO: 44297 OF 15 Petition under Section 151 CPC Pra ing that in the circumstances stated in , the High Court may be Pleased to the affidavit filed in support of the petiti direct the respondents to continue the peti ioner in serive by suspending the letter such other order or other orders in the of resignation daled: 29.04.2015 and pass circumslances of the case and in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s.SMT.K.UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.HARISH KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp 34468_2015 NBK, J RI TITIO N 3 EEMA I T ORDER The petitioner-N.Darahasa Laha joined the respondent-Star UD Life, for short] as Assistant Union Dai-lchi Life Insurance Company ( Vice President on 01.03.2072, after d e selection process. He was confirmed in the employment with effect from L1.09.201.2. ln Decembe4 2012, he was transferred to V akhapatnam as Area Head. On ance and non-achieving of set the ground of consistent under-perfor targets, he was issued a Show Cause N response. Petitioner submitted his respo se on17.04.2015 detailing his tice dated 15.04.2015 seeking achievements even during the period of in Visakhapatnam. He was issued an proposing to take further action on th target was achieved under the Peti submitted his resPonse on 27.04.2 tendered his resignation on 29'04.2015 risis in the wake of cyclone-hit ther letter dated 22.04.2075 ground that only 65% of the oner's leadership. Petitioner 15. However; the Petitioner allegedly under pressure, and specifying his last working day woul be 28.06.2015. The Regional Head, vide e-mail dated 29.04.2075 c that his resignation has been accepted mmunicated to the Petitioner th immediate effect and that he would be relieved from services on 2 of relieving formalities. Thereafterl addressed a letter requesting permissi .06.2075 subiect to comPletion n 13.06.2015, the Petitioner n to withdraw his resignation dated 29.04.2015. The petitioner was 27.06.2075 stating that his resignati communicating acceptance of resig 29.04.2075. Petitioner's salary for the ssued a response e-mail dated n was accepted and a reply ation was sent to him on months of May and fune 2015 l ,":,#, r.l.: 2 -3446A-2015 NBK, J have not been credited to his account within time, and he has been making representations for release ofsalary and the respondents have issued Proceedings dated 17.07.2075 stating that Full and Final settlement of accounts is being processed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he had performed well and achieved targets and his pay was also raised year on yea[ as can be seen from the pay statements filed as material papers with the writ petition, and that he tendered his resignation under forced circumstances, and later he made a request to permit him to withdraw his resignation, but his request was not acceded to. Petitioner assails the Proceedings dated,29.04.2015 issued by the lna respondent accepting the resignation as illegal and arbitrary, and seeks a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits with effect from 28.06.2015. V. Harish Kuma4 learned counsel forthe respondents-SUD Life. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitione4 while making submissions on

3. the lines of writ affidavit, would contend that that SUD Life is a joint venture of Bank of India, Union Bank of Indiaand Dai-lchi Life lnsurance Company of f apan, and as on the date of filing the writ petition, the total combined share of the Bank of India and Union Bank of India was around 7 4o/o, however; due to efflux of time, the share of Bank of India has come down to 28.960/o and that of Union Bank of India to 25.100/o, howeveq, in any event, the cumulative share of the two banks is still over 54olo which effectively places the Banks holding (and thereby Government's holding) at majority and therefore the Government has a ) 3 wp-34468 2015 NBK,,I deep and pervasive control over respond can effectively be called an instrumentali the Constitution, bringing it within the Article 226. Learned counsel draws the nt-joint venture i.e., SUD Life of State under Article 12 of ld of writ jurisdiction under ttention of the Court to Page No.33 of the Reply affidavit wherein SU Life is stated to be a deemed Government Company under Section 6 9(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose oIComptroller and Audit, and therefore the respondent, a respondents in accepting the resignation him from services, is liable be set asid counsel further submits that the petiti results in comparison to other insurance period during cyclone in Visakhapatn results and the pay raises given to the 2Ol3-14 are testimonial to the perform petitioner had to resign due to pressures to withdraw his resignation, howeve(, h uditor General of India [CAG) d consequentlY the action of of the petitioner and relieving under Article 226. Learned ner has achieved significant players, and even during crisis m, the petitioner has shown etitioner during 2012-13 and nce of the petitione4 and the and later he sought Permission was not permitted to resume his position in the company, and therefo e the impugned action is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel sub submitted resignation letter on 19.04.2 he later submitted a letter dated 13.06. to withdraw the resignation. It is co dismissed the writ petition on the gro later in writ appeal was allowed rema fresh consideratio Single Judge for respondents filed counter affidavit o counter is ilable to be refused as the s its that the Petitioner though 15 due to pressures, howeve4, 015 requesting to Permit him ended that earlier this Court nd of maintainabilitY, howeve6, ding the matter to the learned It is contended that the 04.10.2023 and therefore the me was filed beyond 120 daYs 4 wp_34468_2015 N8K, J from the date of service of notice. It is also contended that the respondents are aware ofthe proceedings at the earlier stage when the writ petition was dismissed, and the respondents have even contested the matte; but they did not choose to file counter until after it was remanded and restored to the file. It is contended that the respondent is trying to evade constitutional responsibilities in spite of Government holding majority share in the company. Learned counsel contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomasl enumerated as to when a writ petition is maintainable, and a perusal of paragraph 18 of the said judgment disclose that even a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation, is after remanding the matter on for Learned counsel relies on the following judgments in support of her contentions: i) Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Proiect & Development Indiaz (wherein reference was made to Balram Gupta v. Union of India3, f .N. Srivastava v. Union of Indiaa, Power Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatias to contend that resignation request, in spite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the effective date. iil xxxxxxx +. Learned counsel for the respondents, basing on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, would submit that suD Life though a joint venture of Bank of India and union Bank of India 'AtR 1957 sc 529 , (2000) 5 scc 621 r (1987) 5upp sCC 228 4 (1998) 9 SCC 5s9 5 (1997)4 SCC 280 5 wp_34468_2015 NB(, J (which are Government of India contr lledJ, and Dai-lchi Insurance Company of |apan, and is registered un the CIN Number contains alphabetic C Limited Company, and therefore Government/State enterprise, and even Official Website of the Ministry of Cor er Companies Act, 1956, and de "PLC" which means Public he respondent is not a the information found on the orate Affiirs also shows the respondent company as a "Non-govt co pany". It is also contended that as per Section 2@5) of Companies Act, 013, "Government ComPanY" means a company in which 51% of Pai up share capital is held bY the Central Government, or by State Govern Central and partY one or more State subsidiary company of the Governm instant case, neither the Central Govern ent, or Governments, or Partly Governments, and includes a nt company, howevet in the ent nor State Government nor both jointly hold 51% paid up share ca therefore the respondent is not a Gov contended that even as per subsidiary India nor Union Bank of India hold 5 respondent company, and further the authoriry of the Government nor a authority of the Government of India or tal in respondent SUD Life and rnment company. It is further definition, neither the Bank of % paid-up share caPital in the respondent is neither a local entity operating under the e situated within the territorial limits of India to be considered as Sta It is contended that neither the Government of India, nor the State Go rnment provides anY funds or grants to the respondent company, an Union Bank of India, apart from ho company, do not Provide anY fund company, and that the Government of I noih)v" any administrative or further the Bank of India or the ing shares in the resPondent or grants to the resPondent dia or the State Government do upervisory control over the 6 wp 34468_2015 N8X, J management and affairs of the respondent company. Learned counsel submits that as per the mandate under the Companies Act, the accounts of SUD Life are audited by the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General of India, howevel merely because the accounts are audited, the respondent does not become Government company or State instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution. Learned counsel contends that respondent-SUD Life is a private company with no public duty element involved, and therefore, not amenable to writ iurisdiction. It is contended that the grievance of the petitioner relates to employment, which is primarily contractual in nature, and even admitting that private organizations discharging public function are amenable to writ jurisdiction, the matters of entployment, being contractual in nature, are governed by the employment offer which is a contract document, and a contract document between two private individuals cannot invoke writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel, while strongly contending that the respondent company is a Private Insurance Company, relies on the following iudgments: 1J foshi Technologies v. Union of lndia6 to contend that writ remedy under Article 226 or Article 32 cannot be invoked in pure contractual matters. 2) Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktaiee Vandas Swami Suvarna fayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. R. Rudaniz to contend that mandamus cannot be issued if the rights are purely of private character even if there is an element of public duty ORDER WP.No.34468 of 2015 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS OI