BINNY LTD. AND ANR. versus V. SADASIVAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 08-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BINNY LTD. AND ANR. 
V. 
V. SADASIV AN AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 2005 
[K.G. BALAKRJSHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA RED')!, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950 
Article 226-Writ Remedy-Available against whom--Scope of Writ of 
mandamus-Whether available against private party-Held, writ remedy 
though pre-eminently a public law ren1edy is available against a private party 
if such party is discharging a public function-Scope of remedy is determined 
by the nature of the duty to be enforced, rather then the identity of the 
authority against whom it is sought. 
A 
B 
c 
Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Mandamus-Held, contractual duties 
D 
cannot be enforced by writ of mandamus unless there is some public law 
element and the contractual power is used for a public purpose. 
Article 226-Writ jurisdiction, scope of-Enforcement of contractual 
duties-Services of respondents tern1inated as per the agreement of service 
by giving one months salary-Respondents filed writ petition in the High 
Court for a declaration that the service agreement and the order of 
termination was illegal and void-Relief granted by the High Co .. rt-On 
appeal, held, public policy principle cannot be applied in the matter of 
employment of workers by private persons on the basis of contracts entered 
into between them, unless a public element is involved-The decision of the 
employers to terminate services of the employees cannot be said to have any 
element of public policy and the remedy of the respondents is to seek 
redressal in civil law or labour law-Further held, it was not appropriate 
to construe those contracts of employment as being opposed to public policy 
under section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 as clause 9 provide for an inquiry 
in case of termination for misconduct. 
Appellant company suspended operations of the mill as its premises 
E 
F 
G 
got flooded with rain water and issued orders of termination to the 
respondents-employees as per clause 8 of their agreement of employment. 
Respondents filed writ petition for a declaration that clause 8 of the 
H 
421 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
agreement and order of termination thereunder was void and illegal and 
violative of section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. They also contended that 
the service agreement was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and 
the closure of the mill was against section 25 F and 25 N of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. 
B 
The High Court held that clause 8 of the agreement was void and 
unenforceable as being violative of section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 
and gave the declaration sought for. Hence the present appeal by the 
appellant company. 
C 
The appellant company contended that : 
D 
E 
I. The jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked against 
a private authority who was discharging its function on the basis of 
contract entered into by the employer and the employees. 
2. As there was alternative efficacious remedy available to 
respondents, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be 
exercised. Remedy available to the workers was only ordinary civil 
litigation. 
3. As they were neither public authorities nor their action involved 
public law element, remedy of writ of mandamus was not available. 
4. The High Court was wrong in invoking extraordinary jurisdiction 
under Article 226. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
G 
H 
HELD : 1.1. Superior Court's supervisory jurisdiction of judicial 
review is invoked by an aggrieved party in myriad cases. High Courts in 
India are empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution to exercise 
judicial review to correct administrative decisions and under this 
jurisdiction High Court can issue to any person or authority, any direction 
or order or writs for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part 
III of the Constitution for any other purpose. The jurisdiction conferred 
on the High Court under Article 226 is very wide. However, this is a 
public law remedy and is available against a body or person performing 
public law function. [429-A-C] 
BINNY LTD. v. V. SADASIV AN 
423 
1.2 A writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is pre-
A 
eminently a public law remedy and is not generally available as a remedy 
against private wrongs. It is used for enforcement of various rights of the 
public or to compel the public/statutory authorities to discharge their duties 
and to act within their bounds. It may be used to do justice when there is 
wrongful ex

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.