Writ Petition Raising Dispute Of Contract Of Employment Not Maintainable Unless There Is Breach Of Law Or Statutory Rule: Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court held that unless a breach of law or statutory rule occurs, a dispute concerning a contract of employment does not entitle an employee to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bench stated that a High Court can issue a writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution to a private person. The only condition is that the person, which would include a body or association of persons, corporate or otherwise, must be engaged in the discharge of a public function and the breach complained of, in respect of which the relief is sought, must be related to the discharge of that public function.
A Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir observed, “So long as a body corporate, essentially private, an association or individuals, are undertaking an enterprise of the State, which is essentially a public function, the said body, about those functions thereof, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court…The dispute between the petitioner and the Company about the petitioner resigning and walking away, without handing over charge, arises out of the contract of employment. The Company being essentially a private body and no face or establishment of the State, a breach of the contract of employment, either by the petitioner or the Company, unless it be the breach of some law or a statutory rule, would not entitle the petitioner to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Advocate Adarsh Singh represented the appellant, while Advocate Rakesh Pathak appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner, an employee of Gayatri Projects Limited (Company), tendered his resignation via email, citing dissatisfaction with the conduct of senior management. However, the Company allegedly failed to issue a no-objection certificate, a relieving letter, and the final settlement of his service dues, prompting the employee to file the writ petition before the High Court.
In the meantime, the Interim Resolution Professional had also issued a public announcement, under Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of India, notifying the public that the Company had been ordered by the National Company Law Tribunal for a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
The company argued that the employee left the Company after sending an email about his resignation without handing over the charge.
The Court pointed out that the Company was a private limited company, and, therefore, was not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. However, unlike the Supreme Court, the maintainability of a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not dependent upon the ‘Article 12 test.’
Secondly, the company was engaged in the discharge of public functions of construction of National Highways, State Highways and Public Roads.
“The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has jurisdiction to issue writs, orders or directions of the kind mentioned or in their nature, or any one of them to any ‘person’ or ‘authority’, including in appropriate cases, ‘any Government', to quote the phraseology of Article 226,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the employee should seek redressal before a competent forum.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Reddy Veerraju Chowdary v. Insolvency Professional/Resolution Professional & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:60279)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Adarsh Singh and Indra Raj Singh
Respondents: Rakesh Pathak