9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Maruti Udyog Ltd. is an instrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the termination of the petitioner's employment was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(2), and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Whether Clause 6 of the appointment letter is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as being against public policy. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Instrumentality or Agency of the State: The petitioner argued that Maruti Udyog Ltd. (respondent No. 1) is a government company and an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, due to its substantial control by the Government of India (respondent No. 2). The petitioner cited the company's Memorandum and Articles of Association, highlighting the government's deep and pervasive control, including the power to approve share transfers, appoint representatives, and control strategic policy decisions. The respondents countered that Maruti Udyog Ltd. is a joint venture with Suzuki Motor Company holding 40% equity, and significant policy decisions require Suzuki's concurrence. The company also has financial agreements with international banks, indicating that the Government of India is not the sole financier. The court referred to the Supreme Court's principles in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, which outline factors to determine whether a corporation is an instrumentality of the State. These include government shareholding, financial assistance, monopoly status, deep and pervasive state control, public importance of functions, and transfer of government departments to the corporation. Applying these principles, the court found that Maruti Udyog Ltd. does not meet the criteria for being an instrumentality of the State. The company's significant foreign equity participation, requirement for Suzuki's concurrence on major decisions, and financial independence from the government were key factors. Additionally, the company operates in a competitive market without monopoly status, and its activities are not of vital national importance. 2. Termination of Employment: The petitioner contended that the termination of his employment was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Articles 14, 19(1)(2), and 21 of the Constitution. He argued that Clause 6 of his appointment letter, allowing termination with three months' notice, was void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as it was against public policy and vitiated by inequality of bargaining power. The respondents maintained that the termination was in accordance with the contractual terms agreed upon by both parties. They argued that Maruti Udyog Ltd. is not an instrumentality of the State, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The court, having concluded that Maruti Udyog Ltd. is not an instrumentality of the State, held that the writ petition is not maintainable. Consequently, the court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the termination of employment. 3. Clause 6 of the Appointment Letter: The petitioner argued that Clause 6 of his appointment letter, which allowed termination with three months' notice, was void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as it was against public policy. He claimed that the clause was vitiated by inequality of bargaining power, as the respondent, being a large employer, had an unfair advantage over him. The court, having determined that Maruti Udyog Ltd. is not an instrumentality of the State and that the writ petition is not maintainable, did not address the validity of Clause 6 under the Indian Contract Act. Separate Judgments: One judge concurred with the main judgment but added a perspective on the new economic realities and the need for a judicial perception that aligns with the current industrial policy. The judge emphasized that foreign collaboration and the need for economic viability should not be subjected to the rigour of Article 14, as it could deter foreign investment and technology transfer. Conclusion: The court held that Maruti Udyog Ltd. is not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's employment was not maintainable and was dismissed with costs.
|
