JUDGMENT

(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

Mr. Manjul Kumar Tyagi, the appellant, party in- person, has challenged the legality of the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 413 of 2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, party-in-person. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the omission on part of the Human Resource, AstraZeneca Pharma India Limited, the respondent in not paying the appellant's salary since the year 2010.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 30.01.2009 the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-company. He was stationed at Dehradun. He was required to promote the sales of the respondent company's brands i.e. to generate the company's medicines business/sales in the assigned areas of Dehradun, and in the nearby towns. According to the petitioner, the respondent-company is a multinational giant, as it is an affiliate of subsidiary of AstraZeneca Plc, United Kingdom. According to the petitioner, the respondent-company is not paying the petitioner's salary since the year 2010, and is indulging in unfair labour practices. Therefore, the Trade Union of the respondent-company raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dehradun against the respondent-company. During the period when the dispute was under consideration, as a retaliatory measure, the respondent-company transferred the petitioner. The Trade Union challenged the petitioner's transfer during the proceedings pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dehradun. The said challenge underwent a process of conciliation before the Conciliation Officer- cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Dehradun. Since the conciliation proceedings failed, the industrial dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court, Dehradun; a Labour Case, namely Case No. 21 of 2012, was registered with the learned Labour Court.

3. According to the petitioner, party-in-person, since he refused to follow the transfer order as it was against the provisions of law, namely against Section 6(E) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and against the Uttarakhand Model Standing Orders, w.e.f. 01.06.2010, the respondent-company has not paid the petitioner's salary since 2010. Hence, the writ petition before this Court.

4. However, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition by the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that the industrial dispute, with regard to the transfer order, is pending before the learned Labour Court ever since the year 2012. Moreover, even the non-payment of the salary is an industrial dispute that the petitioner, or the Trade Union, is free to raise before the learned Labour Court. Hence, the petitioner has ample efficacious alternate remedy. Therefore, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked by this Court. Lastly, that the writ petition has been filed against a private company; a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a private company. Thus, the petitioner has approached the wrong forum.

5. Mr. Manjul Kumar Tyagi, the petitioner, party-in-person, has raised the following contentions before this Court :-

Firstly, although the respondent-company is neither a State, nor an instrumentality of the State, as the respondent-company performs a “public duty", it would necessarily fall under the words “other authority" contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In order to buttress his case, the petitioner, party-in-person relies on the case of A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others, [(2004) 7 SCC 112; Binny Ltd. and another v. V. Sadasivan and others, [(2005) 6 SCC 657); and K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and others, [(2015) 4 SCC 670.

Secondly, since the non-payment of salary is a violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner, the petitioner does have a