Court Cases

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Private Company’s Retirement Order Not a Public Duty Issue


➡️ Click here to join our Whatsapp Group

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that violations of service rules do not fall under the category of public duty and therefore cannot be addressed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, in a single-judge bench, stated that the right to continue in service is not a fundamental right. He explained that an employee’s service conditions are governed by specific service rules, and violations of these rules do not constitute a breach of public functions. As a result, any action taken by a private company against its employee cannot be challenged in court under Article 226.

The case involved a petition challenging the order issued by Ultratech Cement Limited, directing the petitioner, a workman, to retire at the age of 58, effective from January 31, 2025. The petitioner contested this order, claiming he should be allowed to continue until the age of 60, as per Rule 14-A of the M.P. Standing Order Rules 1963.

The State’s counsel argued that the petition was not maintainable under Article 226 because Ultratech Cement is a private company. However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the company, although private, is controlled by the Union of India (Ministry of Labour and Employment) and performs a public duty. Therefore, the writ petition should be allowed, as the action violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to livelihood, which is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court, however, clarified that a writ petition can only be maintained against a private entity if the action being challenged is related to a public duty. The court referred to previous judgments, including Laurels School International Vs. Union of India, where a writ was allowed against a private institution because it affected the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. However, the court also referred to St. Mary’s Education Society Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, where it was held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked if the action does not have a public element, even if the private body performs public functions.

In this case, the court concluded that the action of Ultratech Cement, a private company, regarding the petitioner’s retirement age, did not involve a public duty. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *