WORKMEN PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING LTD Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER KANPUR
LAWS(ALL)-2000-4-128
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 24,2000

WORKMEN, PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KANPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.KATJU, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K.P. Agarwal learned Counsel for Petitioner. The petitioners are workmen of Pepsico India Holdings Limited which is a purely private company and is not State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the company has terminated the services of certain employees and is doing unfair labour practices. In our opinion, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and hence this writ petition should not be entertained as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director 1991 (63) FLR 478, also the writ petition is not maintainable as it is against a purely private body.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasji Swami Swarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others v. V.R. Rudani and others, (1989-II-LLJ-324) (SC), Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of A. P., AIR 1993 SC 2178, K. Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another, AIR 1998 SC 295, etc. and has submitted that a writ lies even against a private body. It is no doubt true that in certain exceptional cases, a writ against a private body has been held to be maintainable, but in our opinion these are only exceptional cases and it does not create a general rule. Ordinarily no writ lies against a private body (except a writ of habeas corpus). No Doubt Article 226 of the Constitution is very widely worded. Article 226 (1) states; "(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 (***) every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority including in appropriate case, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part II and for any other purposes.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.