# Workmen of Pepsico India Ltd v. Dy. Labour Commissioner, Kanpur & another

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 4
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/workmen-of-pepsico-india-ltd-v-dy-labour-commissioner-kanpur-another-39533
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
4
declared by the (Central Government) by
notification in the {Official Gazette} to be
service under war conditions, and

[(c) overseas- when he is or has been
serving in any place outside India (other
than Ceylon) the journey between which
and (India) is ordinarily under taken
wholly or in part by sea]"
The
petitioners
have
failed
to
establish that any special condition existed
as contemplated under the said section.

In view of the above, the writ petition
is dismissed.

11. In the end, learned counsel for
the petitioners prayed that some time may
be granted to the petitioners to vacate the
disputed premises. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, the
petitioners are granted six months' time to
vacate the disputed premises provided,
they give an undertaking on affidavit
before the Prescribed Authority within
two weeks from today that they will vacate
the disputed premises within the time
granted by this Court and would hand over
its peaceful possession to the landlord-
respondent No. 2.
 Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
:RUNPHQ RI 3(36,&2 ,1',$ +ROGLQJV
/LPLWHG
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'HSXW\
/DERXU
&RPPLVVLRQHU
.DQSXU
5HJLRQ DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 9. 6LQKD
6UL .3 $JDUZDO
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

0DLQWDLQDELOLW\
WHUPLQDWLRQ
RI
D
ZRUNPDQ RI 3HSVLFR ,QGLD +ROGLQJV /WG
FDQ QRW EH FKDOOHQJHG XQGHU $UWLFOH
RI WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ ,Q YLHZ RI IXOO %HQFK
GHFLVLRQ RI &KDQGUDPD 6LQJK &DVH
+HOG
7KH JULHYDQFH RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU LV WKDW WKH
FRPSDQ\ KDV WHUPLQDWHG WKH VHUYLFHV RI
FHUWDLQ HPSOR\HHV DQG LV GRLQJ XQIDLU
ODERXU
SUDFWLFHV
,Q
RXU
RSLQLRQ
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU KDV DQ DOWHUQDWLYH UHPHG\ RI
UDLVLQJ DQ LQGXVWULDO GLVSXWH XQGHU WKH
83 ,QGXVWULDO 'LVSXWHV $FW DQG KHQFH
WKLV
ZULW
SHWLWLRQ
VKRXOG
QRW
EH
HQWHUWDLQHG DV KHOG E\ WKH )XOO %HQFK RI
WKLV &RXUW LQ &KDQGUDPD 6LQJK YHUVXV
0DQDJLQJ 'LUHFWRU 83/%(&
$OVR WKH ZULW SHWLWLRQ LV QRW PDLQWDLQDEOH
DV LW LV DJDLQVW D SXUHO\ SULYDWH ERG\
(3DUD
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 83/%(&
$,5 6&
$,5 6& $,5 6&
$,5 &DO
 6HF

By the Court

Heard Sri K.P. Agarwal learned
counsel for petitioner.

The petitioners are workmen of
Pepsico India Limited which is a purely
private company and is not State under
Article 12 of the Constitution.

1. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the company has terminated the
services of certain employees and is doing
3All] Workmen of Pepsico India Ltd. V. Dy. Labour Commissioner, Kanpur & another
5
unfair
labour
practices.
In
our
opinion, the petitioner has an alternative
remedy of raising an industrial dispute
under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and
hence this writ petition should not be
entertained as held by the Full Bench of
this Court in Chandrama Singh Versus
Managing Director1991 (2) UPLBEC 898.
Also, the writ petition is not maintainable
as it is against a purely private body.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has invited our attention to the decisions
of the Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC
1607 Sri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree
Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti
Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others Vs.
V.R. Rudani and others, AIR 1993 SC
2178 Unni Krishnan JP V. State of A.P.,
AIR 1998 SC 295 K. Krishnamacharyulu
and others V. Sri Venkateswara Hindu
College of Engineering and another, etc.
and has submitted that a writ lies even
against a private body. It is no doubt true
that in certain exceptional cases, a writ
against a private body has been held to be
maintainable, but in our opinion these are
only exceptional cases and it does not
create a general rule. Ordinarily no writ
lies against a private body (except a writ of
habeas corpus) No doubt Article 226 of the
Constitution
is
very
widely
worded.
Article 226 (1) states:

 3 1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ DQ\WKLQJ LQ DUWLFOH

 HYHU\ +LJK &RXUW VKDOO KDYH SRZHU
WKURXJKRXW WKH WHUULWRULHV LQ UHODWLRQ WR ZKLFK LW
H[HUFLVHV MXULVGLFWLRQ WR LVVXH WR DQ\ SHUVRQ RU
DXWKRULW\ LQFOXGLQJ LQ DSSURSULDWH FDVH DQ\
*RYHUQPHQW ZLWKLQ WKRVH WHUULWRULHV GLUHFWLRQV
RUGHUV RU ZULWV LQFOXGLQJ ZULWV LQ WKH QDWXUH RI
KDEHDV FRUSXV 0DQGDPXV SURKLELWLRQ TXR
ZDUUDQWR DQG FHUWLRUDUL RU DQ\ RI WKHP IRU WKH
HQIRUFHPHQW RI DQ\ RI WKH ULJKWV FRQIHUUHG E\
3DUW ,,, DQG IRU DQ\ RWKHU SXUSRVHV ́

3. It may be noted that the above
provision states that a writ can be issued to
"any person or authority" and it further
states that a writ can be issued for
enforcement of the rights conferred by Part
III and" for any other purpose". However
although very wide language is used in
Article 226, by judicial interpretation a
narrower meaning has been given. In our
opinion the language of Article 226 can
not be read literally. For example Article
226 states that a writ can be issued ' for
any other purpose' but this does not mean
that a writ can issue for granting a divorce
or for deciding criminal trials. The words'
for any other purpose' have to be
interpreted to mean that a writ shall
ordinarily by issued for the purpose for
which writs were traditionally issued by
the British Courts on well-established
principles.

4. Similarly it has been stated in
Article 226 that a writ can be issued to
'any person', but once again these words
cannot be read literally. A writ can be
issued to the persons to whom writs were
traditionally issued by British Courts on
well established principles and not literally
to any person whomsoever. Thus, while
the language of Article 226 on the face of
it is very wide it does not mean that writ
can be issued for any purpose whatsoever
and to any person whomsoever. Writs will
ordinarily be issued to the persons, and for
the
purpose,
for
which
writs
were
traditionally issued by the British Courts
on well-established principles. No doubt
the powers of the Indian High Court under
Article 226 are wider than those of the
British Courts, as held in Dwarika Nath
Vs. I.T.O., AIR 1966 SC81, but they are
not so wide as to empower the Indian High
Courts to pass any order whatsoever in
INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
6
writ jurisdiction. There are well settled
limitations on such powers.

5. The decisions that the learned
counsel for the petitioner cited were cases
where a public duty was involved, and in
such exceptional cases a writ was issued to
a private body. There is no such public
duty involved here.

6. In several decisions it has been
held that a writ does not ordinarily lie
against private bodies e.g. Praga Tools
Corp. Vs. Imannel, AIR 1969 SC 1306,
Carlsbad Minerral Water Mfg.Co.Ltd. V.
Jagtiani AIR1952 Cal 315, C.M.Khanna
V. NCERT, AIR 1992 SC 76 etc. Thus,
while exercising writ jurisdiction the Court
must keep in mind the history and origin of
the high prerogative writs in England and
in India, and it cannot be guided by the
words used in Article 226 alone. The
ordinary principle therefore remains that a
writ will not ordinarily be issued to a
private body (except a writ of habeas
corpus).

7. In Scooter India Versus Vijai
Eldred 1998 (6) SCC 549, the Supreme
Court held that a writ should not be
ordinarily entertained when there is an
alternative remedy under industrial law.
This has also been held by a Full Bench of
this Court in Chandrama Singh Vs.
Managing Director (supra).

8. Since admittedly the respondent
company is a purely private body and is
not instrumentality of the State and since
the petitioner has an alternative remedy
under industrial law in our opinion, we are
not inclined to interfere in this case.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that in a large number of labour
courts/industrial tribunals in U.P. there is
no Presiding Officer in view of certain
directions given by this Court in certain
writ petitions in pursuance of the Supreme
Court decision in State of Masarastra
versus
labour
Law
Practitioners'
Association. AIR 1998 SC 1232. The
petitioner
may
approach
the
State
Government
for
appointing
Presiding
Officers
to
these
bodies
and
we
recommend to the State Government to
make appointments to fil up the posts ass
expeditiously as possible.

Petition is dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

2P 3DO 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVHV
'LVWULFW 'HYHORSPHQW 2IILFHU *KD]LDEDG
DQG RWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 9LQRG 6LQKD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 61 6ULYDVWDYD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

'LVPLVVDO RUGHU FKDUJHV PHQWLRQHG LQ
WKH
FKDUJH
VKHHW
UHSOLHG
E\
WKH
HPSOR\HH RU HQTXLU\ RIILFHU VXEPLWWHG
UHSRUW ZLWKRXW H[DPLQLQJ DQ\ ZLWQHVV RU
IL[LQJ
DQ\
GDWH
IRU
GHSDUWPHQWDO
SURFHHGLQJ
SHUVXDQW
WR
WKH
HQTXLU\
UHSRUW GLVPLVVDO RUGHU SDVVHG ± FDQ QRW
XSKHOG
+HOG