Constitution of India – Art.32 – Personal contractual rights inter se the employee and his employer – Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.12 - a Limited Company committed several financial irregularities in their business and financial dealing with many Companies, firms and individuals in contravention of the provisions of Several Acts/Rules/Regulations – Respondent No.12 contended that writ petitioner was its former employee and that petition was filed with an ulterior motive to tarnish the image of respondent no.12, as some civil suits were pending between them – Held: In instant case, petitioner has not claimed any relief in person qua respondent no.12-Company – Even otherwise, writ petition u/Art.32 is not the remedy for agitating any personal grievance in relation to any of his contractual personal rights flowing from any service conditions or any other agreement – If the writ petitioner has any personal grievance in relation to his contractual personal rights, legal remedy for petitioner lies in filing civil suit or taking recourse to any other civil law remedy for adjudication and enforcement of his rights qua respondent no.12-Company or anyone claiming through them as the case may be – Since, parties were already prosecuting their grievances against each other in Civil Court, the same have to be pursued by them in accordance with law.
Dismissing the Writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. At the outset, the writ petitioner has not claimed any relief in person qua respondent No.12 – Company, in this writ petition. Even otherwise, no writ lies under Article 32 of the Constitution at the instance of any employee or the employer for claiming enforcement of any personal contractual rights inter se the employee and his employer. [Para 16] [430-A-B]
2. If the writ petitioner has any personal grievance in relation to any of his contractual personal rights flowing from any service conditions or any other agreement with the respondent No.12 – Company, his legal remedy lies in filing Civil Suit or take recourse to any other civil law remedy for adjudication and enforcement of his rights qua respondent No.12 – Company or anyone claiming through them as the case may be. The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not the remedy for agitating any such grievance. [Para 17][430-B-C]
3. It is not in dispute that the parties are already prosecuting their grievances against each other in Civil Court in their respective civil suits filed by them against each other. If that be the position, the same have to be pursued by them in accordance with law against each other. [Para 18] [430-D]
4. Insofar IAs filed by the different applicants for claiming various reliefs qua respondent No.12 – Company in relation to their individual and collective grievances are concerned, all such applicants would be at liberty to raise their grievances qua respondent No.12 – Company whether individually or severally for adjudication of their rights before an appropriate Judicial Forum in accordance with law. [Paras 23, 24] [431-A-C] State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402 : [2010] 1 SCR 678 ; K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC
481 : [2008] 10 SCR 454 ; Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 609 : [2014] 3 SCR 861 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.