2019 (1) TMI 2006 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - bonafide petition or not - petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution - petitioner has not claimed any relief in person qua respondent No.12 Company - claiming enforcement of any personal contractual rights inter se the employee and his employer. HELD THAT - The writ petitioner has not claimed any relief in person qua respondent No.12 Company, in this writ petition. Even otherwise, no writ lies under Article 32 of the Constitution at the instance of any employee or the employer for claiming enforcement of any personal contractual rights inter se the employee and his employer. If the writ petitioner has any personal grievance in relation to any of his contractual personal rights flowing from any service conditions or any other agreement with the respondent No.12 Company, his legal remedy lies in filing Civil Suit or take recourse to any other civil law remedy for adjudication and enforcement of his rights qua respondent No.12 Company or anyone claiming through them as the case may be. The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not the remedy for agitating any such grievance. This order, therefore, will not influence any authority or the Court or ongoing inquiry or proceedings while dealing with any issue. The same has to be dealt with uninfluenced by this order. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking Writ of Mandamus for CBI investigation into financial irregularities by a company, Allegations of financial misconduct against company and individuals, Respondent company's defense against allegations, Legal remedy for personal grievances between employee and employer, Jurisdiction of Civil Court over contractual disputes, Status reports filed by official respondents, Inquiry under various Acts, Dismissal of writ petition, Dismissal of various applications seeking reliefs against the company.

Analysis:
The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution sought a Writ of Mandamus or other directions for the CBI to investigate financial irregularities by a company, highlighting the grievance against the company and individuals involved in its operations. The petitioner, a former employee of the company, alleged financial misconduct and violations of laws and regulations by the company and its associates. The petition also claimed heavy losses to the public exchequer due to these activities.

The respondent company, in its defense, contended that the petition was not bona fide and was filed to settle personal issues, pointing out pending civil suits between the parties. The company denied the allegations made by the petitioner and sought dismissal of the writ petition on legal and factual grounds. The petitioner refuted these claims, stating that there was no suppression of material facts as alleged by the company.

The Court noted that the writ petitioner did not claim any relief against the company personally in the petition. It clarified that Article 32 of the Constitution does not provide a remedy for enforcing personal contractual rights between an employee and employer. The Court emphasized that if there were personal grievances, the legal remedy lay in filing a Civil Suit or pursuing other civil law remedies for adjudication and enforcement of rights.

Regarding the grievances against other respondents, the Court observed that the official respondents had filed status reports related to the inquiries being conducted by them. The Court stated that appropriate action would be taken based on the outcomes of these inquiries as provided by law against those found guilty. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the factual issues raised by the parties against each other.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not necessary to entertain various applications seeking reliefs against the company. The applicants were advised to raise their grievances before an appropriate judicial forum for adjudication of their rights in accordance with the law. The Court's order was clarified not to influence any ongoing inquiries or proceedings, emphasizing that they should proceed uninfluenced by the judgment.