No listing of a writ petition relating to an industrial dispute unless it discloses ‘exceptional circumstances’: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has stated that a writ petition relating to an industrial dispute shall not be listed unless it discloses ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the synopsis and in its opening paragraphs. (PTI Employees Union vs PTI).If the writ petitioner does not disclose the “Exceptional circumstances” in the writ petition, the Registry shall return the writ petition under objections to enable the writ petitioner to disclose the “Exceptional circumstances” in the Synopsis as well as in the opening paras of the writ petition.Delhi High Court.A single Judge Bench of Justice JR Midha has ordered that subject to the approval of Chief Justice of the High Court, the Registry may incorporate the following column in the check list of writ petitions: “Whether the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy? If so, disclose the 'Exceptional circumstances' which may warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the Synopsis as well as in the opening paras of the writ petition?".The order was passed in writ petitions challenging the retrenchment of 297 employees by Press Trust of India (PTI) in September 2018..The writ petitions was preferred by a Trade Union of PTI employees and Federation of four PTI Employees' Union (Petitioners). .The Petitioners challenged the retrenchment on various grounds inter alia that PTI was amenable to writ jurisdiction and that it qualified as a "factory" within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. .It was further submitted that all the retrenched employees were "workmen" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. .The Petitioners contended that the retrenchment was in violation of Sections 9A, 25-H, 25-N, 25-F, 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and Section 16A of the Working Journalists Act, 1955..PTI, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable as being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction. .It was further contended that the actions of PTI in respect of employer-employee relationship could not be tested under writ jurisdiction when the retrenched employees have statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. .In its order passed in the writ petitions, the Court noted that the retrenched employees have a statutory remedy to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. .Relying on the judgments passed by the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that unless exceptional circumstances are made out, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when a statutory remedy is available. .The Court not only opined that there were no exceptional circumstances for exercise of the writ jurisdiction in the present writ petitions, it also observed that the case also involved disputed questions of facts which could not be resolved under writ jurisdiction.."The Supreme Court (has) held in clear terms that such disputed questions of fact are required to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of the evidence led by the parties.", it added. .Holding that courts are required to maintain uniformity in applying the law, the Court thus opined,.There are no ‘Exceptional circumstances’ to exercise the writ jurisdiction in the present writ petitions. If the writ jurisdiction is exercised in the present cases, it would violate the well settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court..The Court also noted that both the Petitioners failed to show the authority to file the writ petition on behalf of 297 retrenched employees. .The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed. .The Court clarified that the retrenched employees were at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available to them under the Industrial Disputes Act..Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves with Advocate Aditi Gupta appeared for the Petitioner. .Senior Advocate PS Patwalia with Advocates N B Joshi, Anurag Ranjan, Seema Neb..Read the Judgement: