2016 (12) TMI 509 - HC - Indian Laws

Order of dismissal from service challenged - Held that - If an employee intends to enforce his constitutional rights or a right under a statutory Regulation, the civil court will have the necessary jurisdiction to try a suit. If, however, he claims his right and corresponding obligations only in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or the sister laws so called, the civil court will have none. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, it would not be correct even to contend that only because the employee concerned is also a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the 1947 Act or the conditions of his service are otherwise governed by the Standing Order certified under the 1946 Act ipso facto the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction. In a case where no enquiry has been conducted, there would be violation of the statutory Regulation as also the right of equality as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation, a civil suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration that the termination of service was illegal and the consequences flowing therefrom. However, the Court may hasten to add that if a suit is filed alleging violation of a right by a workman and a corresponding obligation on the part of the employer under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Certified Standing Orders, a civil suit may not lie. However, if no procedure has been followed as laid down by the statutory Regulation or is otherwise imperative even under the common law or the principles of natural justice which right having arisen under the existing law, subpara (2) of paragraph 23 of the law laid down in Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & others 1975 (8) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT shall prevail. Vide Bal Mukund (2009 (2) TMI 807 - SUPREME COURT ) For all the foregoing reasons, the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this writ application is upheld. I hold that this writ application is not maintainable against the Reliance Industries Limited. This writ application is disposed of with liberty to the legal heirs of the original writ applicant to approach any other forum for the redressal of their grievance if so advised. The time spent by the writ applicant in prosecuting the present proceeding shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation in case the writ applicant choose any such remedy where the question of limitation would be relevant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private entity (Reliance Industries Limited) after the public sector entity (IPCL) was privatized.
2. Whether the writ petition can be continued against the private entity due to the original filing against a public sector entity.
3. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning private entities.
4. The impact of subsequent events on the maintainability of the writ petition.
5. The availability of alternative remedies for the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner.

Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private entity:
The primary issue was whether the writ petition could be maintained against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) after the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (IPCL) was privatized. The court noted that IPCL was a "State" under Article 12 when the writ petition was filed but ceased to be so after its merger with RIL, a private entity. The court emphasized that a writ petition under Article 226 is typically not maintainable against a private entity unless it performs public functions or duties akin to those of the State.

2. Continuation of the writ petition against the private entity:
The petitioner argued that the rights of the parties crystallized at the time of filing the petition, and subsequent events should not affect the maintainability. However, the court held that the change in the status of IPCL to a private entity (RIL) meant that the writ petition could not continue against RIL, as it was not performing any public function or duty.

3. Scope of Article 226 concerning private entities:
The court reiterated that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is primarily a public law remedy and is not generally available against private wrongs. A writ can be issued against a private body only if it discharges public functions or duties. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions clarifying that a writ under Article 226 is not maintainable against private entities unless they perform public duties.

4. Impact of subsequent events on the maintainability of the writ petition:
The court acknowledged that ordinarily, the rights of the parties are determined based on the situation at the commencement of litigation. However, it also noted that subsequent events that fundamentally impact the right to relief or the nature of the relief sought must be considered. The court found that the privatization of IPCL and its merger with RIL, a private entity, was a significant subsequent event that affected the maintainability of the writ petition.

5. Availability of alternative remedies:
The petitioner contended that the legal heirs had no alternative remedy other than the writ jurisdiction. The court disagreed, stating that the legal heirs could file a civil suit challenging the dismissal order and the departmental inquiry's fairness. The court highlighted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would protect the legal heirs in terms of the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against RIL. It held that the writ petition was not maintainable against a private entity that did not perform public functions or duties. The court disposed of the writ petition with liberty for the legal heirs to seek redressal through appropriate forums, considering the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition for the purpose of limitation.