Employee’s Writ Petition Against Private Company Seeking Continuation In Service Not Maintainable: Madhya Pradesh HC
The petitioner-workman had approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the order directing him to be superannuated at the age of 58 years.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a Writ Petition instituted by an employee against a private company claiming to be continued in service and held that the violation of service rules would not come within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions.
The petitioner-workman had challenged the order directing him to be superannuated at the age of 58 years with effect from January 31, 2025.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla emphasized, “The right to continue in service cannot be held to be a fundamental right. The service conditions of an employee is governed by the Service rules and violation of service rules would not come within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions and, therefore, any action taken by a private institution against his employee would not come within the judicial scrutiny of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,”
Advocate Jagdish Baheti appeared for the Petitioner while Panel Lawyer Pranjali Yajurvedi appeared for the Respondent.
Arguments
One of the arguments raised by the Respondent was that the petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution against respondent No.4 which is a private company.
On the contrary, it was the Petitioner’s case that respondent No.4 is controlled by respondent No.1(Union Of India- Ministry of Labour and Employment) and since the fundamental right of the petitioner regarding 'livelihood' is violated, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Reasoning
To adjudicate upon the issue regarding the maintainability of a petition against a private company, the Indore Bench of the High Court referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (2003) and Janet Jayapaul Vs. SRM University & Others (2015).
“Thus, from the aforesaid judgments it is clear that writ is maintainable even against a private person or authority if action of such an authority which is challenged is in domain of public law as distinguished from private law. The emphasis is on the nature of duty and if the private person or authority is discharging a public duty, the writ is maintainable”, it said.
Reference was also made to the judgment in St.Mary's Education Society and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors. (2023) wherein it has been held that the action impugned before the writ court has no nexus with the public element, even though the private body in question may be discharging public functions, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in such a case.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner who was working as a Workman with respondent No.4 is a private company and is seeking relief for continuation in service upto 60 years of age. This cannot be held to be an action relating to public duty of the respondent No.4. The same cannot be held to be a breach of public duty by the respondent No.4.
“Thus, it is held that a writ petition against a private company challenging the order of premature retirement and claiming to be continued in service is not maintainable”, the Bench concluded while dismissing the Petition.
Cause Title: Vikram Singh v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-IND:1186)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Jagdish Baheti
Respondent: Panel Lawyer Pranjali Yajurvedi
