Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikram Singh Chauhan vs Union Of India on 30 January, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 WA-235-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WA No. 235 of 2025
(VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 30-01-2025
Shri Prabuddha Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents.
Shri Sudanshu Vyas, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondent no.1, Shri Sonal Gupta, A.A.G accepts notice on behalf of
respondents No.2 & 3 and Shri Mukul Bhutda accepts notice for respondent
No.4.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Also heard on the question of interim relief.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide letter dated
01.11.2024 the respondent no.4 is retiring the writ petitioner after attaining
the age of 58 years whereas in view of the judgment passed by this Court in
W.A.No.1167/2019 (Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. vs. Additional Labour
Commissioner & others), he is entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years.
He further submits that the writ Court has wrongly dismissed the writ
petition by relegating the petitioner to approach the Industrial Court under
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act when the Industrial Court had
already decided this dispute in respect of retirement age.
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent no.4 opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the writ
2 WA-235-2025
court has rightly taken the view in view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of U.P State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and others vs. U.P
Rajya Setu Nigam S.Karamchari Sangh - AIR 2005 SC 4067.
In reply, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed
reliance on para-18 & 27 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and others - (2003) 10 SCC 733
which are reproduced below:
18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that
emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State
(Govt); (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality
or agency of the State; ( v) a company which is financed and
owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State
funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive
obligation of public nature (viii) a person or a body under liability
to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to
perform such a statutory function.
27. Such private companies would normally not be amenable to
the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But in
certain circumstances a writ may issue to such private bodies or
persons as there may be statutes which need to be complied with
by all concerned including the private companies. For example,
there are certain legislations like the Industrial Disputes Act, the
Minimum Wages Act, the Factories Act or for maintaining proper
environment say Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 or Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
etc. or statutes of the like nature which fasten certain duties and
responsibilities statutorily upon such private bodies which they are
3 WA-235-2025
bound to comply with. If they violate such a statutory provision a
writ would certainly be issued for compliance of those provisions.
For instance, if a private employer dispense with the service of its
employee in violation of the provisions contained under the
Industrial Disputes Act, in innumerable cases the High Court
interfered and have issued the writ to the private bodies and the
companies in that regard. But the difficulty in issuing a writ may
arise where there may not be any non-compliance or violation of
any statutory provision by the private body. In that event a writ
may not be issued at all. Other remedies, as may be available, may
have to be resorted to.
Apart from the aforesaid judgment, in this case a reference was made
by the State Govt. on a request made by workmen through Union challenging
the action of the respondent no.4 retiring at the age of 58 years. The State
Govt. sent the reference to the Industrial Court which was challenged by the
respondent no.4 by way of writ petition before this Court. During the
pendency of the writ petition, the Industrial Court passed an award dated
26.04.2022 answering the reference in favour of the workmen that they are
entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years. The respondent No.4
challenged the said reference by way of miscellaneous petition before this
Court. All the writ petitions were decided by a common order dated
24.09.2024 in favour of the workmen that they are entitled to continue up to
the age of 60 years. Therefore, the issue raised by the petitioner in this
petition has already been put to rest by the Industrial Court, hence every
workman cannot be expected to approach the Court to get an answer to
reference. Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act makes the award final
4 WA-235-2025
between the workman and employer. Therefore, the award passed by the
Industrial Court which has been affirmed by this Court is binding on the
respondent no.4.
Shri Patwardhan, learned senior counsel submits that the order passed
by this court has been challenged by the respondent no.4 before the Apex
Court vide SLP (C) No.24813-24833/2024 and vide order dated 25.10.2024
the Apex Court has only issued notice in the SLP but the order passed by this
Court has not been stayed. Therefore, till the order dated 24.09.2024 passed
by this Court in the bunch of writ petitions is stayed/set aside by the Apex
Court, the same is binding on the respondent no.4. Hence, the appellant is
entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years and that continuation shall be
subject to any order passed by the Apex Court.
C.c as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
