MUKUL KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. HINDUSTAN TIMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning an order of termination of services, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent did not comply with the mandatory requirements of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). Admittedly, the respondent is not a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, would submit that a writ petition will be maintainable even against a private person if there has been a violation of statutory duty. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sain Steel Products Vs. Naipal Singh and others, 2001 (89) FLR 358 (SC) .

(2.) A writ petition, as is well-known, could be maintained against a respondent only when the petitioner establishes a legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in the respondent.

(3.) A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Basant Kumar Sarkarand others Vs. The Eagle Rolling Mills and others, 1964 (8) FLR 334 (SC) , has categorically held that in relation to an industrial dispute, a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained and the writ court shall not convert itself into an industrial court.