Writ jurisdiction over private employment contracts remains limited where no public law duty is shown in termination disputes.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction remains a public law remedy, so mandamus lies only to enforce a public or statutory duty. A private employer's termination of service under a purely contractual relationship does not, by itself, attract writ review, and the proper remedy is ordinarily in contract or labour law. The Court distinguished cases involving public sector bodies or institutions performing public functions and held that they did not extend writ maintainability to private contractual termination. On the facts stated, a contractual termination clause was not shown to be invalid as against public policy, and the writ petition was held not maintainable for enforcing purely private rights against private employers.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 lies against a private employer in respect of termination of service governed by contract, and whether such termination can be struck down for want of a public law element.

Analysis: The wide reach of Article 226 was reiterated, but its use was held to remain essentially a public law remedy. Mandamus issues to enforce a public or statutory duty, and the mere fact that the respondent is a private body does not by itself attract writ jurisdiction. The controlling test is the nature of the duty sought to be enforced: if the dispute arises from a purely contractual relationship, ordinary contractual or labour remedies are the proper course. The Court distinguished cases involving public sector undertakings or institutions discharging public duties, and held that those authorities did not justify treating private contractual termination as amenable to judicial review. It further held that a clause enabling termination in the private employment contract could not be invalidated as opposed to public policy on the facts presented, and that the High Court had not properly examined the contract as a whole.

Conclusion: A writ petition was not maintainable to enforce purely private contractual rights against the private employers in these matters, there being no sufficient public law element in the impugned terminations.

---