2021 (4) TMI 1278 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking multifarious reliefs embracing several causes of action, including a challenge to the termination orders of the employees working in the Food and Beverages department of Delhi Golf Club - issuance of various directions to DGC, Government of India, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and other Authorities under different labour welfare legislations - HELD THAT - The functions carried out by DGC cannot even remotely be termed as public functions. Providing recreation as a Club to its restricted members cannot be compared to the functions of the BCCI on any pedestal. Since this Court has held that writ petitions are not maintainable as no writ would lie against a private body not performing public functions, it would be unnecessary to decide the other issues raised by the parties including the existence or otherwise of an alternate remedy. It is left open to the Petitioners to resort to appropriate remedies available to them in accordance with law for ventilating the grievances raised in the present petitions. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues raised. Petitioners seek prosecution of the office bearers of DGC, alleging violation of the various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Factories Act, 1948, Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Contract Labour (Regulation Abolition) Act, 1970. The reliefs sought cannot be granted by this Court as it is the prerogative of the State Government to initiate prosecution, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case before it. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued for directing prosecution or institution of legal proceedings to any party and there is a complete mechanism available to the Petitioners under the relevant statutes for the said purpose. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions against Delhi Golf Club (DGC).
2. Whether DGC is a 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
3. Whether DGC performs public functions or discharges public duties.
4. Alleged illegal termination of employees during the COVID-19 pandemic.
5. Prohibition of deployment of contract labor by DGC.
6. Prosecution of DGC for alleged violations of various labor laws.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against DGC:
The primary issue was whether the writ petitions against DGC were maintainable. The court examined if DGC could be considered a 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution or if it performed public functions or duties. The court held that DGC is a private club, not created by a statute, and not financially or administratively controlled by the government. Consequently, DGC is not a 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12, nor does it perform public functions, making the writ petitions non-maintainable.

2. Whether DGC is a 'State' or 'Other Authority' Under Article 12:
The court analyzed whether DGC could be classified as a 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12. DGC is a company under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, and is not created by a statute. It operates independently, governed by its own Memorandum and Articles of Association, with no financial or administrative control by the government. The presence of three government-nominated directors in DGC's General Committee does not confer any special powers. Thus, DGC does not fall under the definition of 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12.

3. Whether DGC Performs Public Functions or Discharges Public Duties:
The court considered whether DGC performs public functions or discharges public duties, which would make it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. DGC provides recreational facilities to its members and does not perform any functions akin to sovereign functions of the State. The court referred to the judgment in Air Vice Marshall J.S. Kumar, where it was held that providing recreational facilities does not constitute a public function. Therefore, DGC does not perform public functions or discharge public duties.

4. Alleged Illegal Termination of Employees During COVID-19 Pandemic:
The petitioners challenged the termination of employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging it violated various labor laws and government notifications. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the termination, as the writ petitions were found non-maintainable. However, the court noted that DGC had complied with the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, by paying retrenchment compensation to the terminated employees.

5. Prohibition of Deployment of Contract Labor by DGC:
The petitioners sought to prohibit the deployment of contract labor by DGC, alleging violations of the Contract Labor (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The court noted that the Joint Labor Commissioner had recommended forwarding the petitioners' application to the State Advisory Board for consideration. The court expressed confidence that the concerned authorities would act expeditiously in accordance with the law.

6. Prosecution of DGC for Alleged Violations of Various Labor Laws:
The petitioners sought prosecution of DGC for alleged violations of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Factories Act, 1948, Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Contract Labor (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The court held that it could not issue a writ of mandamus directing prosecution, as it is the prerogative of the State Government to initiate prosecution based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Nagpur Glass Works Ltd., which held that a writ of mandamus cannot compel a person to institute legal proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of non-maintainability, as DGC is not a 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12, nor does it perform public functions. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the termination of employees or the alleged violations of labor laws, leaving it open for the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with the law.