Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Tata Communications Limited As Govt Doesn’t Enjoy Financial Control Over Entity: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court held that as per Article 12 of the Constitution, a writ petition is not maintainable against Tata Communications Limited as the Government does not enjoy financial control over the same.
The Court held thus in a writ petition preferred by Federation of Tata Communications Employees Unions, a group of former employees of the aforesaid company.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, “The respondent Company is similarly placed with the Air India, where the Government had functional, financial and administrative control over the said entities i.e., the respondent Company and Air India, however, the said control ceased to exist post disinvestment in both the entities. … In view of the same, this Court is of the view that a writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent Company as the Government does not enjoy financial, functional or administrative control over the entity, conditions necessary for issuance of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The Bench said that the Government had disinvested its share in the said company in the year 2001 and thereafter, the company ceased to exist as an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Advocate Manik Dogra appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The respondent company had majority stake of Government of India and was under the aegis of Ministry of Telecommunication, Union of India. In 2001, the share of the Government was sold, however, the employees were retained and subsequently, some of them were terminated by the respondent company in 2008. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner federation comprising the said employees who were terminated, filed the petition before the High Court.
The senior counsel for the respondent objected to the maintainability of such petition on the ground that in terms of Article 12 of Constitution, the respondent company was a private entity and not a State. On the contrary, the counsel for the petitioner opposed the submissions of the senior counsel contending to the effect that since the respondent company was performing public function, it was amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “… the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the judgment given by the Bombay High Court, whereby, the writ petitions filed by the former employees of the Air India were termed non-maintainable due to privatization of the said entity. … While affirming the reasoning provided by the Bombay High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pursuant to the disinvestment by the Government, Air India cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts and therefore, an aggrieved party cannot seek the said remedy for redressal of any grievance against the said entity.”
Furthermore, the Court referred to the judgment in the case of Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 33 in which the Government had disinvested the majority shares of the entity and it was held that the employees made a case to continue their services. In this regard, the Court noted that the said judgment was nowhere related to the rights of the employees, rather the same revolved around the question of whether the employees of an entity have a role in the decision of disinvestment by the Government.
“While replying in negative, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held the said decision to be an economic one and upheld the decision of disinvestment by the Government. … Therefore, the ruling of the Balco (supra) case is nowhere applicable to the dispute at hand and the petitioner federation has wrongly relied upon the same as the said case was not adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the different issues”, it added.
The Court held that the petition is not maintainable as the entity against which the relief is being sought has attained the nature of a private entity and a writ is not maintainable against a private entity.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Federation of Tata Communications Employees Unions v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4679)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Manik Dogra and Dhruv Pande.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, Advocates Rishi Agrawala, Parminder Singh, and Harsh Mittal.
