RAMESH SANKA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

RAMESH SANKA

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 142 of 2018)

JANUARY 25, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND

R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]

Constitution of India – Art.32 – Personal contractual rightsinter se the employee and his employer – Petitioner alleged thatRespondent No.12 - Limited Company committed several financialirregularities in their business and financial dealing with manyCompanies, firms and individuals in contravention of the provisionsof Several Acts/Rules/Regulations – Respondent No.12 contendedthat writ petitioner was its former employee and that petition wasfiled with an ulterior motive to tarnish the image of respondent no.12,as some civil suits were pending between them – Held: In instantcase, petitioner has not claimed any relief in person qua respondentno.12-Company – Even otherwise, writ petition u/Art.32 is not theremedy for agitating any personal grievance in relation to any ofhis contractual personal rights flowing from any service conditionsor any other agreement – If the writ petitioner has any personalgrievance in relation to his contractual personal rights, legal remedyfor petitioner lies in filing civil suit or taking recourse to any othercivil law remedy for adjudication and enforcement of his rights quarespondent no.12-Company or anyone claiming through them asthe case may be – Since, parties were already prosecuting theirgrievances against each other in Civil Court, the same have to bepursued by them in accordance with law.

Dismissing the Writ petition, the Court

HELD: 1. At the outset, the writ petitioner has not claimedany relief in person qua respondent No.12 – Company, in thiswrit petition. Even otherwise, no writ lies under Article 32 of theConstitution at the instance of any employee or the employer forclaiming enforcement of any personal contractual rights inter sethe employee and his employer. [Para 16] [430-A-B]

426SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 2 S.C.R.

A2. If the writ petitioner has any personal grievance inrelation to any of his contractual personal rights flowing from anyservice conditions or any other agreement with the respondentNo.12 – Company, his legal remedy lies in filing Civil Suit or takerecourse to any other civil law remedy for adjudication andenforcement of his rights qua respondent No.12 – Company orBanyone claiming through them as the case may be. The writpetition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not the remedyfor agitating any such grievance. [Para 17][430-B-C]

3. It is not in dispute that the parties are already prosecutingCtheir grievances against each other in Civil Court in theirrespective civil suits filed by them against each other. If that bethe position, the same have to be pursued by them in accordancewith law against each other. [Para 18] [430-D]

4. Insofar IAs filed by the different applicants for claimingDvarious reliefs qua respondent No.12 – Company in relation totheir individual and collective grievances are concerned, all suchapplicants would be at liberty to raise their grievances quarespondent No.12 – Company whether individually or severallyfor adjudication of their rights before an appropriate JudicialEForum in accordance with law. [Paras 23, 24] [431-A-C]

State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.(2010) 3 SCC 402 : [2010] 1 SCR 678 ; K.D. Sharmav. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC481 : [2008] 10 SCR 454 ; Arun Kumar Agrawal v.FUnion of India & Ors.(2014) 2 SCC 609 : [2014] 3SCR 861 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition(Criminal) No.142 of 2018

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Tushar Mehta, SG, Anil Grover, AAG, Vikas Singh, Sanjay Hegde,Shyam Divan, Sandeep Sethi, Nidhesh Gupta, S.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Advs.,Ms. Chanchal Chauhan, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Rajesh KumarChaurasia, Sudhir Kathpalia, Anil Sharma, Mahesh Agarwal, RishiAgrawala, Ankur Saigal, Sameer Chaudhary, Anshuman Srivastava,Ms. Shruti Garg, E. C. Agrawala, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, P.K. Dey,T.A. Khan, Ms. Suhasini Sen, B. V. Balaram Das, B. Krishna Prasad,Ashish Bhan, Mohit Rohatgi, Aayush Mitruka, Bankey Bihari Sharma,Ms. Richa Narang, Hitesh Mankar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mrs. AnilKatiyar, Alok Sangwan, Sunny Kadiyan, Dr. Monika Gusain,Ms. Tejaswini Chandrasekhar, Siddharth Batra, Ravinder Kumar,Vishwajeet Arora, Ms. Garima Sehgal, Viriti Gujral, Ms. Jaspreet Kaur,Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This writ petition is filedby one Mr. Ramesh Sanka under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ ordirections directing Respondent No.23 (CBI) to investigate the entirematter and examine all the allegations made by the writ petitioner againstRespondent Nos.12 to 22 in accordance with law. The other reliefsclaimed in clause (b) to (d) of the writ petition are consequential to themain relief.

2. Stated concisely, the petitioner seeks the aforementioned reliefson following facts.

3. The petitioner is former employee of Respondent No.12 - aLimited Company. He worked as CEO of the said company from June2014 till 31[st] December 2016.

4. In substance, the grievance of the writ petitioner is againstRespondent No.12. He has highlighted the manner and the modusoperandi of Respondent No.12 – Company, in carrying out their businessand financial operations/dealings.

5. His grievance is also against the persons who are managingthe affairs of Respondent No.12 - Company and also against theCompanies, individuals and the firms with whom respondent No.12 -Company is having their business and financial dealing/operations i.e.(Respondent Nos.13 to 22, 24 and 25).

B6. According to the writ petitioner, Respondent No.12 – Company,through their Directors and employees has committed several financialirregularities in their business and financial dealing with many Companies,firms and individuals who are having their work places in India and abroadcontrary to and in contravention of the provisions of Several Acts/ Rules/ Regulations which have gone unnoticed despite the writ petitioner hadCsent several complaints/representations to various statutory authoritiesin this behalf.

7. According to the writ petitioner, all such dealings/activities ofRespondent No.12 – Company, which he has highlighted in the writpetition has not only caused heavy loss to the public exchequer but alsoDrendered the persons, who indulged in these activities, liable to faceprosecution for commission of several cognizable offences punishableunder the Acts.

8. It is essentially with these background facts; the writ petitionerhas made allegations in the writ petition. He has also filed some documentsEto show prima facie that the prayer made by him in his writ petitiondeserves consideration.

9. On 11.07.2018, this Court issued notice of this writ petitionconfining it to the official respondents namely, respondent Nos.7 to 11.These respondents have filed the status report in sealed cover. OneFofficial-respondent has filed the affidavit.

10. Respondent No.12 – Company, however, in the meantimeentered suo motu appearance and has filed IA No.104447 of 2018 prayingtherein for dismissal of the writ petition on legal as well as on factualgrounds.

11. In substance, according to respondent No.12 – Company, thewrit petition filed by the writ petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitutiondeserves dismissal on the grounds inter alia that it is not bona fidepetition. It is contended that this writ petition is filed by former employee

of respondent No.12 – Company to score his personal issues and thedifferences qua respondent No.12 – Company, for which some civilsuits are pending between the parties in the Civil Court: that the writpetitioner has suppressed several material facts in the writ petitionincluding the fact of pendency of the Civil Suits between them: that thewrit petition is filed with an ulterior motive at the behest of others only totarnish the image of respondent No.12 – Company, in the market: thatthe writ petition does not involve any issue of infraction/violation of anyfundamental rights, guaranteed to the citizens under the Constitution ofIndia, of the petitioners. The Respondent No.12 – Company, has deniedall such allegations made against them by the writ petitioner as beingbaseless.

12. The writ petitioner has countered the averments made in theaforesaid IA by placing reliance on the averments made in the writ petitioncontending that there has been no suppression of the material facts asalleged by respondent No.12 – Company.

13. In the meantime several persons /organizations have suo motufiled the applications being I.A. Nos.3739/2018, 176284-85/2018,D.No.110020/2018, 160094/2018, 171501/2018, 160094/2018, 163098/2018, D. No.175943-47/2018, 144019/2018, 81895/2018, 165472/2018,163874/2018, 157884/2018, 115735/2018 and 2974/2019, seeking thereinvarious kinds of reliefs for them individually and collectively againstrespondent No.12 – Company, in relation to their independent dealingswhich they claimed to have had with respondent No.12 – Company andwhich according to them are not till date fructified and given to them byrespondent No.12 – Company, as agreed.

14. We have heard all the learned counsel for the parties in supportof their case.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keepingin view the law laid down by this Court in the cases reported in State ofUttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. [2010 (3) SCC 402],K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.[2008(12)SCC 481 and lastly in Arun KumarAgrawal vs. Union of India &Ors. [2014(2) SCCC 609], we are not inclined to grant any relief in thiswrit petition.

16. At the outset, we find that the writ petitioner has not claimedany relief in person qua respondent No.12 – Company, in this writ petition.Even otherwise, no writ lies under Article 32 of the Constitution at theinstance of any employee or the employer for claiming enforcement ofany personal contractual rights inter se the employee and his employer.

B17. If the writ petitioner has any personal grievance in relation toany of his contractual personal rights flowing from any service conditionsor any other agreement with therespondent No.12 – Company, his legalremedy lies in filing Civil Suit or take recourse to any other civil lawremedy for adjudication and enforcement of his rights qua respondentNo.12 – Company or anyone claiming through them as the case may be.CThe writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not the remedyfor agitating any such grievance.18. It is not in dispute that the parties are already prosecutingtheir grievances against each other in Civil Court in their respective civilDsuits filed by them against each other. If that be the position, the samehave to be pursued by them in accordance with law against each other.

19. So far as the raising of other grievances as set out supra bythe writ petitioner against the other respondents are concerned, sufficeit to say, this court by order dated 11.07.2018 had issued notice to theEofficial respondents Nos.7 to 11. These respondents pursuant to the noticeissued have filed their respective status report in relation to the inquiries,which is being undertaken by them in their respective jurisdiction. Wehave perused the same.

20. Needless to say depending upon the outcome of the inquiryFonce it is completed by the respective official respondents in theirexclusive jurisdiction under various Acts, the appropriate action asprovided in law will follow against all those who are found guilty.

21. Before parting, we make it clear that we have not expressedany opinion on several factual issues alleged and denied by all the partiesGagainst each other in this writ petition and in respective IAs.

22. This order, therefore, will not influence any authority or theCourt or ongoing inquiry or proceedings while dealing with any issue.The same has to be dealt with uninfluenced by this order.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is not necessary toAentertain several IAs bearing Nos.3739/2018, 176284-85/2018,D.No.110020/2018, 160094/2018, 171501/2018, 160094/2018, 163098/2018, D. No.175943-47/2018, 144019/2018, 81895/2018, 165472/2018,163874/2018, 157884/2018, 115735/2018 and 2974/2019, filed by differentapplicants for claiming various reliefs qua respondent No.12 – Company,Bin relation to their individual and collective grievances.

24. All such applicants would be at liberty to raise their grievancesqua respondent No.12 – Company whether individually or severally foradjudication of their rights before an appropriate Judicial Forum inaccordance with law.

25. It is with these observations, we find no merit in this writpetition, which fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

Petition dismissed.