2011 (5) TMI 1106 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition by a foreign company under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court to hear the writ petition in the Original Side.
3. Validity of the conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition by a Foreign Company:
The petitioner, a foreign banking company, challenged the legal validity of a conciliation proceeding initiated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent no. 4 raised a preliminary objection, arguing that a foreign company cannot maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that there is no specific bar in the Constitution preventing a corporation incorporated outside the country from maintaining a petition under Article 226. The basic requirement is that the legal right of the complainant should be breached by any person or authority fitting the description of "State" under Article 12. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, stating that a foreign company can invoke the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction to enforce their legal rights, though not based on rights preserved for citizens only.

2. Jurisdiction of the Court to Hear the Writ Petition in the Original Side:
The respondent no. 4 also objected to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the writ petition in the Original Side, arguing that all respondents have their offices outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Court. The Court noted that if a writ petition is wrongly filed in the Original Side, it does not lead to its automatic dismissal. The practice is to direct conversion of the writ petition as an appellate side matter. The Court referred to previous judgments supporting this view and rejected the preliminary objection, stating that the cause of action arose from notices received within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Court.

3. Validity of the Conciliation Proceeding:
On the merits, the petitioner argued that the respondent no. 4 is not a "workman" u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and raised jurisdictional issues over the Conciliation Officer's authority. The Court found that whether a person is a workman is a question of fact, and the Writ Court would not ordinarily enter into such a factual inquiry. The Industrial Disputes Act is a self-contained code with procedures for determining issues arising from industrial disputes. The Court held that there was no ex facie illegality in issuing the notices and that the petitioner would have ample opportunity to argue their case before the appropriate forum under the Act. The Court also addressed the validity of the conciliation proceeding, noting that the earlier proceeding was closed under special circumstances, and the respondent no. 4 was given liberty to raise the dispute afresh. The Court found no illegality in proceeding with the same dispute afresh and dismissed the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and all interim orders were dissolved. The Court directed the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act to take further steps expeditiously. The Court granted a stay of operation of the judgment for three weeks.