Bombay High Court

VAIBHAV EAKNATH MALVANKARversusTHE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF FRANCO INDIAN PHARMACITICAL PVT LTD

Decided: 14 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Vaibhav Eaknath Malvankar, filed a writ petition seeking a relieving letter, experience certificate, pending salary and full and final settlement from Franco Indian Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. The company argued it is a private entity and not a 'State' under Article 12, contending that the second respondent, the State of Maharashtra, has no role. The petition was challenged on the ground of non‑maintainability as it does not involve a public authority. The Court observed that it would not entertain the petition and made no determination on the merits of the employee's claims. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Issues considered

The petition is maintainable under Article 12 of the Constitution when the respondent is a private company
Whether the State of Maharashtra can be impleaded as a respondent in a dispute between a private employee and a private employer

Subjects

writ petition
relieving letter
private company
Article 12
maintainability
employment dispute

Judgment

TRUPTI
SADANAND
BAMNE
Digitally signed by
TRUPTI SADANAND
BAMNE
Date: 2026.08.17
                                                            1             918-wp-10483-2026.odt
11:02:18 +0530




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 10483 OF 2026

                      Vaibhav Eaknath Malvankar                          … Petitioner
                            versus
                      The Managing Director of Franco
                      Indian Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.             … Respondents

                                                           ……
                      Mr.Ashutosh Kale (through VC) for the Petitioner.
                      Mr.Yash Vyas (through VC) for Respondent No.1, the Company
                      Mr.O.A.Chandurkar, Addl.GP with Mrs.Madhubala Kajale, ‘B’ Panel
                      Counsel for Respondent No.2, the State.
                                                       …...

                                              CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ
                                                          &
                                                      GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

                                               DATE   : 14 AUGUST, 2026

                      P.C.:


                      1.                The learned Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Kale, is available

                      online. However, he is not interacting with the Court, though he is

                      visible.



                      2.                The learned Advocate representing Respondent No. 1

                      submits that Respondent No. 1 is a private pharmaceutical company. It is


                      Trupti S. Bamne
                                        2               918-wp-10483-2026.odt

not a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The

Petitioner’s claim is with regard to the issuance of a relieving letter, an

experience certificate, pending salary and full and final settlement of his

dues. Apparently, Respondent No. 1 is a private pharmaceutical

company. Respondent No. 2 is unnecessarily added as the State of

Maharashtra, Bombay High Court.



3.                The learned Addl.GP submits that Respondent No. 2 has no

role to play in this matter and that it is a dispute between a private

individual and a private pharmaceutical company.



4.                Notwithstanding the above, the learned Advocate for the

private pharmaceutical company submits that the company will make an

endeavour to look into the grievance of the Petitioner and, if such

grievance can be redressed, appropriate steps would be taken.



5.                We make it clear that we are not entertaining this Petition

and that, we have not expressed any opinion on the claim made by the

Petitioner, since this Petition is not maintainable.




Trupti S. Bamne
                                          3                 918-wp-10483-2026.odt

6.                As such, this Petition is disposed off.




(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)                        (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Trupti S. Bamne

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…