Termination by a private company without inquiry or hearing is not maintainable under Article 226 since the employment relationship is contractual, not public law.

ORDER :

Sanjay Dwivedi, J.

1.Heard on admission.

2. By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure-P/8) whereby his services have been terminated and he has been removed from service. The said order/communication is made by respondent No.5/Director, Urmila International Service Private Ltd.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Urmila International Service Private Ltd. is a registered company under the statute and having its registered number. He also submits that the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated in this manner, that too without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. He further submits that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can be issued against the respondent-employer in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others (2003) AIR (SC) 4325 and also in the case of The Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual and others (1969) 1 SCC 585 . He further submits that the petitioner is the employee of respondent No.5 though it is a private company and therefore outsourcing services of the petitioner are provided to respondents No.2 to 4 and the termination order is apparently illegal and in violation to the principles of natural justice, and therefore writ can be issued because the respondents are engaged in performing the public duty. He further submits that the petitioner was performing the duties with respondents No.2 to 4, a company which is involved in generation of electricity and its supply to the public and therefore it is a public duty and the petition is maintainable. However, I am not convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Indeed, the Supreme Court in the cases, on which petitioner has placed reliance, has categorically observed that writ against a private company cannot be issued under Article 226, but writ can be issued to an official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings. A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute fort he purpose of fulfilling public responsibilities. In the case at hand, although the petitioner failed to show as to under which statute, respondent No.5 is constituted and what duties/obligations have been assigned by the statute to respondent No.5 to perform the public duties. Otherwise also, it reveals that respondent No.5 is a company providing employees to respondents No.2 to 4 and also to other Organisations which take services of the employees from outsourcing instead giving them employment directly. It does not reveal for what purpose, respondent No.5 has been formulated. It is not for discharging the public obligation/responsibility, but has been formulated to earn money for livelihood and to provide employees through outsourcing. The outsourcing agency has no obligation to discharge the public duties/responsibility but providing employees to the government or private organisations in any manner cannot be termed as discharge of public duties and as such termination of the employee working in the private organisation, which is an outsourcing agency, providing employees to the government and private organisations, cannot be interfered with in a petition under Article 226 is not maintainable.

Of-late, the Supreme Court in the case of Army Welfare Education Society vs. Sunil Kuma r reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1683 has considered the similar issue and laid down as to what is a public duty and where the cause r