Service Dispute With Private Trust Not Maintainable Under Writ Jurisdiction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an employee of 'The Tribune Trust', holding that service disputes arising out of purely contractual employment with a private body are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The respondent-Trust is an independent entity with its own set of rules meant for internal regulation of the service of its staff. Moreover...in absence of any statutory rules, the nature of relationship between the respondent-Trust and its employees is that of a private employer and a private employee as it does not involve any public law element. Further still, the action of the respondent-Trust challenged by the petitioner is of the nature of a private contractual dispute regarding termination of her service. Nothing on the record indicates that the impugned action bears a public element to merit intervention by this Court."

The petition was filed by Pooja Taneja challenging the termination order dated May 28, 2024. The petitioner had been working with The Tribune Trust since 2007 and was eventually promoted to the post of AGM (R). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her on allegations of granting undue financial benefit to an advertising agency and causing financial loss to the Trust. Following an enquiry, her services were terminated.

The petitioner contended that the Trust performs public functions and should fall within the ambit of Article 12. The termination was mala fide and aimed at denying her promotion. Charges were not proved, and even management witnesses supported her conduct. The action violated principles of fairness and due process.

The respondents argued that the Trust is a private entity and not “State” under Article 12. The petitioner was a contractual employee, and termination was in accordance with contractual terms.

The dispute is purely private in nature, with no public law element and the appropriate remedy lies before a civil court, it added.

Relying on precedents of the Supreme Court, including St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, the Court held, writ jurisdiction can be invoked against private bodies only when they discharge public duties, and the impugned action has a direct nexus with such duty.

The bench said that employment disputes arising out of purely contractual relationships, without statutory backing, do not attract writ jurisdiction and internal service rules of private bodies do not have statutory force.

The Court also reiterated that even if an institute performs public functions, disputes relating to employment conditions of non-statutory staff remain in the private law domain.

Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the respondents.

Title:  Pooja Taneja v. The Tribune Trust and others

Click here to read order