2013 (3) TMI 339 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of the writ petition seeking mandamus against a Private Concern - Writ of mandamus directing the MD of R-1 Company to pay the difference in the VRS amount based on the revised scale of basic pay and D.A. as per the Circular dated 12.07.2000 together with 9% per annum from the date of the Circular - petitioners herein were employed with the first respondent/HTL, Guindy - Held that - In the present case, the acceptance (even assuming that it was illegal acceptance) for voluntary retirement of a particular employee cannot be characterized as leading to such a monstrosity so as to exercise power under Article 226 against a private organisation, which is clearly beyond the ordinary purview of Article 226. Even though in many cases it has been held that writ of Mandamus would be maintainable even against a private person, such cases relate to question of enforcement of public duty. Having regard to all these aspects, it is a fit case where a writ can no longer be issued in view of the changed circumstances, namely privatisation of the respondent. If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to Mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. Testing the present case even in the light of the aforesaid criterion, it could be seen that the two traits/exceptions viz., (i) the rights are purely of a private character and (ii) the company is purely a private body, are apparently present here. Thus, even if the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is applied, his case will have to be dismissed in threshold on the ground that no writ would lie against the first respondent, a private entity. Writ Petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of maintainability.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private entity.
2. Entitlement to the difference in VRS amount based on revised pay scales and D.A.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private entity:

The petitioners, former employees of a public sector organization that was later privatized, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the first respondent to pay the difference in the VRS amount based on revised pay scales and D.A. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable since the first respondent was no longer a public sector entity after the disinvestment by the Government of India.

The Court examined the maintainability of the writ petition in light of previous judgments, including the case of Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R.Rudani, which expanded the scope of mandamus to include private entities under certain conditions. However, the Court noted that the same principle was discussed in Rohtas Industries Limited v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, where it was held that writs could be issued against private entities only in exceptional circumstances involving public duties.

The Court referred to previous decisions, including W.P. No.6325 of 2004 and W.A. No.416 of 1998, which dealt with similar issues and concluded that writ petitions against the privatized entity were not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the privatization of the first respondent changed its status, making it a purely private body with no public duty. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

2. Entitlement to the difference in VRS amount based on revised pay scales and D.A.:

The petitioners argued that they were entitled to the difference in the VRS amount based on the revised pay scales and D.A. effective from 01.01.1997. They contended that the first respondent's denial of this difference was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents countered that the VRS amount was a fixed sum calculated as per the terms of the Special Scheme dated 05.10.1988, which was in force when the petitioners opted for VR. They argued that the recalculation of the ex-gratia amount due to wage revision was not applicable and that the benefits promised under the original scheme were duly disbursed.

The Court, having dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, did not delve into the merits of the petitioners' claim regarding the difference in the VRS amount. The Court noted that even if the petitioners had a valid claim, the appropriate forum for such a claim would not be a writ petition against a private entity.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, as the first respondent was no longer a public sector entity and did not have any public duty. The Court did not address the merits of the petitioners' claim for the difference in the VRS amount, leaving it open for the petitioners to pursue any other available remedies before the appropriate forum.