Court affirms writ jurisdiction inapplicable in private employment cases without statutory rules or public law elements
In a notable judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Pooja Taneja against The Tribune Trust, concluding that the case does not fall within the ambit of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought quashing of her termination from employment, arguing that the respondent trust discharges public functions and hence, the writ petition was maintainable.
The court, presided by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, made it clear that the relationship between a private employer and employee is fundamentally contractual in nature. The judgment emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can only be invoked if the service conditions are governed by statutory rules or if there exists a public law element in the employer-employee relationship. In the absence of statutory regulations or public law elements, the remedy for such employment disputes lies with the civil courts.
The petitioner, Pooja Taneja, was employed by the Tribune Trust on a contractual basis and was terminated following disciplinary proceedings. Her termination was challenged on grounds that the trust falls under Article 12 of the Constitution, engaging public functions. However, the court dismissed these claims, referencing precedents set by the Supreme Court which clarified that private entities are not amenable to writ jurisdiction in employment matters unless statutory rules are involved.
Justice Brar cited several judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, to affirm that employment disputes involving private entities should be resolved through civil litigation, not constitutional writs. He referred to the decisions in cases such as "St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava" and "Army Welfare Education Society New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma," which underscore the contractual nature of private employment relationships and the lack of public law elements therein.
The court concluded that the action of the Tribune Trust in terminating the petitioner’s contract was purely a private contractual matter, devoid of any public law element that would justify judicial intervention under Article 226. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the court advising the petitioner to pursue alternate remedies through civil court proceedings.
The judgment serves as a significant reminder of the limitations of writ jurisdiction in private employment disputes and reinforces the principle that statutory regulation or a public law element is essential for invoking Article 226.
Bottom line:-
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in cases of private employment disputes unless the service conditions are governed by statutory rules or there exists a public law element in the employer-employee relationship.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Pooja Taneja v. Tribune Trust, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2890707
