B.Subhashan Reddy, C.J.: The matters have been referred to Full Bench to answer whether a private company is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of Constitution of India and if so what are the parameters.

2. These matters relate to transfer of employees of Sri Chakra Tyres Limited, T.V.S.Suzuki Limited, Axle India Limited, ICICI Bank India Limited and G.E.Power Controls India Limited. While the employees complain the managements’ act of their transfers as a measure of victimization and thus extraneous and mala fide, the managements counter the said allegations asserting that transfers are made in exigencies of service and for better performance of the companies, and not for any extraneous reasons or as a measure of victimization.

3. The learned single Judge has upheld the contention raised on behalf of the Managements that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the employees have to approach the forums created under the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Industrial Disputes Act. Writ appeals have been preferred by the employees before the Division Bench and then other writ petitions were also tagged on to the said writ appeals and after hearing the matters, by a common order passed on 31.10.2003, the Division Bench was inclined to concur with the findings of the learned single Judges but felt that the matter be referred to the Full Bench as another coordinate Bench in Chemplast Sanmar Limited v. Mettur Chemicals Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam and another, (2000)1 L.L.J. 1335, took a view that for violation of a statutory provision, writ petition is maintainable even against a private company.

4. W.A.Nos.1387 to 1389 of 2002 relate to Sri Chakra Tyres Limited, and filed by the employees against the order of the learned single Judge. W.A.Nos.1390 to 1392 of 2002 are filed by employees of T.V.S. Suzuki Limited against the order of the learned single Judge. W.A.Nos.1392 to 1411 of 2002 have been filed by the employees of the Axle India Limited, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge. So far as the writ petitions are concerned, they have been referred to be heard along with the writ appeals, when they came up before the learned single Judge.

5. Mr.V.Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the writ appellants and writ petitioners strenuously contended that the transfers, which have been effected, are mala fide due to extraneous reasons and not in exigencies of service as projected by the management, that a reference under Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not an answer to redress the grievance of the employees, and that in fact, such a reference at the instance of certain individuals is not maintainable as only Employees Union can avail of Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such, alternative remedy doesn’t exist, and even if it exists, it is not efficacious. It is also argued by Mr.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the employees that civil suits are barred and there is no remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the only remedy, which is available is the one provided under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, and this Court shall not shut the doors to the employees. He also submitted that in the case of ICICI Bank the pensionery benefits are being curtailed and that is a change in service condition, and pension being a fundamental right traceable under Art.21 of the Constitution of India, writ petition is maintainable. There is no need for adjudication, so far as the pensionery benefits are concerned, as we record the statement made by Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the ICICI Bank that no pensionery benefits of the employees before this Court shall be affected. What remains is the adjudication relating to transfers.

6. The managements before us are all companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. They do not come within the definition of State under Art.12 of the Indian Constitution. Unfair Labour Practice, particularly, Clau

Click Here to Read the rest of this document