The Uttarakhand High Court has reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not available against private employers who are neither state entities nor discharging public functions, even where dismissal orders allegedly violate a Lok Adalat award. The judgment underscores the primacy of statutory remedies under industrial laws over constitutional remedies in employment disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the dismissal of several workmen employed by Interarch Building Products (Pvt.) Ltd., a private limited company, following internal inquiry proceedings. The workmen, represented by their union Interarch Mazdoor Sangathan, challenged the dismissal orders as violative of a settlement agreement dated 15.12.2022, which had been incorporated into an award by the National Lok Adalat on 11.02.2023.
Key Facts
- The workmen were dismissed between January and February 2023 after internal disciplinary inquiries.
- A settlement was reached between the employer and the union on 15.12.2022 during conciliation proceedings under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- The settlement document contained a handwritten addition in paragraph 3 stating: "during course of the inquiry proceedings and even thereafter, the services of the workmen would not be dispensed with."
- The settlement was presented before the National Lok Adalat on 11.02.2023, which recorded it as an award.
- The employer contested the authenticity of the handwritten addition, alleging it was an interpolation not part of the original signed agreement.
- The employer is a private company with no financial aid from the State or Central Government and does not perform any public function.
Procedural History
- 15.12.2022: Settlement reached between employer and union during conciliation.
- 11.02.2023: National Lok Adalat passed an award incorporating the settlement.
- Late January - February 2023: Dismissal orders issued against the workmen.
- March - April 2023: Four writ petitions filed before the Uttarakhand High Court (Single Judge) challenging the dismissals.
- 26.02.2024: Single Judge dismissed all writ petitions on two grounds: (i) existence of alternative remedy under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and (ii) employer not being a "State" under Article 12.
- 05.04.2024: Special Appeal No. 89 of 2024 filed.
- 08.04.2024: Special Appeal No. 152 of 2024 filed.
- 10.04.2024: Special Appeal No. 153 of 2024 filed.
- 12.04.2024: Special Appeal No. 154 of 2024 filed.
- 17.03.2026: Division Bench heard appeals and delivered judgment.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants (Workmen & Union)
- Argued that the Lok Adalat award dated 11.02.2023 is binding and enforceable as a civil court decree under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
- Contended that the employer’s dismissal violated the terms of the award, warranting judicial intervention.
- Asserted that writ jurisdiction is available to enforce fundamental rights and statutory obligations, even against private parties when public law principles are engaged.
For the Respondents (State & Employer)
- The State contended that the employer is a private entity not covered by Article 12 and hence not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
- The employer disputed the authenticity of the handwritten clause in the settlement, claiming it was an unauthorized interpolation.
- Argued that the settlement was not registered under Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore not enforceable as an award under that statute.
- Maintained that the workmen had an efficacious alternative remedy under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, including execution of the Lok Adalat award as a decree.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought:
- Quashing of the dismissal orders.
- Restoration of services with full back wages and benefits.
- Declaration that the Lok Adalat award is binding and enforceable.
- Direction to the employer to comply with the terms of the settlement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a private employer for breach of a Lok Adalat award, where an alternative statutory remedy exists under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the employer is not a "State" under Article 12.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants relied on Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which provides that every Lok Adalat award shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and is executable as such. They argued that the award, once passed, creates a binding legal obligation enforceable through civil court proceedings. They further contended that the writ court should have examined the merits of the alleged violation, especially since the award was recorded in open court with the consent of both parties. They cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that even private entities may be subject to writ jurisdiction if they exercise public functions, though this was not directly applicable here.
For the Respondent
The State and employer argued that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is confined to actions by the State or its instrumentalities. They emphasized that the employer is a private limited company with no state funding or public duty. They further contended that the settlement was not registered under Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus could not be treated as a statutory award under that Act. They maintained that the workmen’s remedy lay in executing the Lok Adalat award as a civil decree or filing a claim under the Industrial Disputes Act, both of which are efficacious and specific remedies.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench examined the jurisdictional threshold for writ petitions against private entities and the nature of Lok Adalat awards. It acknowledged the appellants’ reliance on Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and accepted that a Lok Adalat award is indeed a decree of a civil court and enforceable accordingly. However, the Court held that this does not automatically render the employer amenable to writ jurisdiction.
"The ultimate conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners-appellants have other efficacious remedy available to them, and that the employer is neither ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 nor performing any public function and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction, are found to be correct."
The Court clarified that the existence of a statutory remedy under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - including the ability to execute the Lok Adalat award as a civil decree - is a decisive factor in declining writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked when an equally effective, specific remedy is available. It further noted that the authenticity of the handwritten clause in the settlement was not material to the jurisdictional issue, as the alternative remedy was sufficient to address any breach.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Lok Adalat award, by virtue of being a civil decree, transforms the nature of the employer into a public entity. The Court reiterated the settled principle from S.P. Gupta v. Union of India that Article 12 does not extend to private bodies merely because they are engaged in economic activity or have contractual obligations.
The Verdict
The appeals were dismissed. The Court upheld the Single Judge’s order dismissing the writ petitions. The appellants are at liberty to pursue their remedy by executing the Lok Adalat award dated 11.02.2023 as a decree of a civil court under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, or by initiating proceedings under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court explicitly stated that no merits of the dispute were decided, and all contentions are left open for adjudication before the appropriate forum.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Alternative Remedy Bars Writ Jurisdiction
- Practitioners must first exhaust statutory remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act or execute Lok Adalat awards as civil decrees before approaching High Courts under Article 226.
- Writ petitions against private employers for breach of settlement awards will be dismissed unless the employer is shown to be a state instrumentality or discharging public function.
Lok Adalat Awards Are Enforceable, But Not Writ-Enforceable
- A Lok Adalat award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is a civil decree and can be executed in a civil court.
- However, such awards do not convert private employers into state entities for the purpose of writ jurisdiction.
- Lawyers should file execution petitions in civil courts, not writ petitions, to enforce these awards.
Private Employers Are Generally Beyond Writ Purview
- Employers without state funding, control, or public function are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- This applies even where the dispute involves alleged violations of settlement terms or statutory rights under labour laws.
- The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that no alternative remedy exists - mere inconvenience is insufficient.
