Surendra Pal Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Surendra Pal Singh, filed a writ application before the Jharkhand High Court challenging his termination from Mivaan Steels Limited (4th respondent), a private limited company. The petitioner contended that his termination was without cogent reason and that he had not been paid salary for several months. The respondent Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioner's grievance was against a private company and thus he should pursue an alternative remedy before the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner requested the court to direct the 4th respondent to pay his salary for the period worked.

Held

The Court held that it does not have the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a mandamus against a private limited company. The reasoning was that the dispute involved a private employer-employee relationship and termination, which are matters typically addressed by specialized forums like the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the writ application was disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Industrial Tribunal for his grievances concerning termination and other related reliefs, including unpaid salary. The court did not decide on the merits of the termination or the salary dispute itself, as it found itself without the appropriate jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has the power to issue a writ of mandamus against a private limited company for a dispute concerning termination and unpaid salary? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that the 4th respondent, Mivaan Steels Limited, should at least be directed to pay his salary for the period he worked, implying a belief that the High Court could intervene in such matters. Revenue/State's argument: The respondent-BCCL, through its counsel, argued that the petitioner's grievance pertains to a private limited company and that the appropriate forum for such disputes is the Industrial Tribunal, suggesting that the High Court lacks jurisdiction in this specific instance.