Approved insolvency resolution plans are binding on all stakeholders, effectively extinguishing claims not integrated into the plan. Additionally, contract employees lack an inherent right to regularization, and writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised in matters plagued by significant delay, laches, and acquiescence.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Exercise of discretionary power - Alternative statutory remedy available - When such remedy exists, extraordinary jurisdiction may be declined if the controversy involves disputed facts or if adequate statutory forums are already provided to resolve the conflict. (Para 9)

(B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 31 and 60 - Resolution Plan - Once approved by the adjudicating authority, a resolution plan is binding on all stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the corporate debtor and its employees - Claims not part of the approved plan stand extinguished to ensure the debtor is revived on a 'fresh slate'. (Para 10)

(C) Service Law - Contract employment - Regularization - No inherent right exists for contract-based personnel to seek mandatory regularization or automatic renewal of service - Such engagement is strictly governed by the specific terms and conditions of the agreement or offer. (Para 11)

(D) Delay and Laches - Doctrine of - Equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights - Unreasonable delay without sufficient or adequate justification warrants the dismissal of a petition - Constitutional courts must remain alert to the impact of long-standing inactivity on the fairness of legal proceedings. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, representing families displaced by the acquisition of land for an infrastructure project, were provided ad hoc employment under a formal agreement between the project developers and the state. After the project operating company became insolvent and underwent a insolvency resolution process, the petitioners continued working under a new management entity. The petitioners subsequently filed a writ petition seeking, among other things, the quashing of specific employment terms, the regularization of their services, and parity in pay with other project employees, claiming breach of rehabilitation promises.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the employment terms did not provide for permanent status and that the petitioners failed to challenge the terms for many years. Furthermore, the court determined that the petitioners' claims were subject to a finalized resolution plan approved by the adjudicating authority, which bound all stakeholders and precluded any new claims regarding the prior contractual arrangements. The court also observed that the petition suffered from significant delay and laches, as the petitioners failed to pursue their grievances in a timely manner.

Issues: (i) Whether the court should exercise writ jurisdiction despite the existence of alternate statutory remedies and a settled resolution process; (ii) whether the petitioners are entitled to permanent employment based on the project agreement; and (iii) whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once a resolution plan is judicially approved, it is binding on all stakeholders, and failing to raise grievances during the resolution process renders such claims unsustainable. Furthermore, as contract employees have no statutory right to permanent status, and given the unreasonable delay in approaching the court, no relief can be granted as equity does not favor laches.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. employment rights for project-affected families are defined by the specific project agreement and project-specific terms. (Para 1 , 2)
2. disputes concerning employment, rehabilitation, and liability in insolvency proceedings are subject to the limitations of the approved resolution plan. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may be declined where statutory remedies exist or where resolution plans under the i&b code create a 'clean slate' for successful resolution applicants. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. contractual employees lack inherent rights to regularization; moreover, inordinate delay and laches (lack of vigilance) bar the grant of equitable relief. (Para 11 , 12)
5. a writ petition that lacks merit and is filed after undue delay must be dismissed. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioners are members of “Project affected families”, their lands having been acquired for the development of the Rangit Stage IV, Hydro Electric Power Project, pursuant to an Agreement, dated 09-12-2005, executed between the State- Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.3, through Respondent No.2. The Petitioners are presently employed under the Respondent No.4 Company. In the Writ Petition, they seek the following reliefs;

(a) a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the Article 4.16 of the Said Agreement.

(b) a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No.4 to regularise the services of the Petitioners in view of the regularisation orders issued by the Respondent No.3 to the Petitioners.

(c) a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No.4 to fix pay scale for the Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 18 as at par with 3rd grade and the Petitioner Nos.3 to 17 and 19 to 29 as at par with 4th grade and all entitlements to be provided to the Petitioners at par with other regular project affected employees of the Respondent No.4.

(d) a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby direct the Respondents to rehabilitate the Petitioners as per the Article 3.6 of the said Agreement.

(e) pass any other appropriate order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. A brief summation of the facts of the Petitioners case is that, the Respondent No.3 was selected by Respondent No.1, to develop the Rangit Stage IV Hydro Electric Power Project in West/South Sikkim and a consequent Agreement dated 09-12-2005 entered into between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3, for the Project, on a build, own, operate and transfer basis (BOOT), through the Sikkim Power Development Corporation (SPDC). Pursuant thereto, lands were acquired from the Petitioners for the above purpose and they were offered appointments in the office of Respondent No.3, in various posts on ad hoc basis, in terms of Clause 4.16 of the Agreement which provides as follows;

4.16 Displaced Families

The Company shall provide employment to one member of each of the displaced families or adversely affected as a result of the acquisition of land for the Projects covered in the Rehabilitation Plan referred to in Clause 3.6 and 4.4 above in the process of the construction of the Project and such employment shall cease immediately on completion of construction of the project.

(i) On completion of the period of probation of six months and fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the ad hoc appointments, the services of the Petitioners were regularised by the Respondent No.3 in 2008 and 2009, vide various orders (Annexures R-3 to R-30 collectively). In the meanwhile, in the year 2015 the Respondent No.3 became insolvent and the financial creditor approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Branch. The NCLT ordered the commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent N