Writ jurisdiction for foreign companies and industrial conciliation disputes must generally proceed before the statutory forum.

A foreign company may invoke Article 226 against allegedly unauthorised action of a public authority, and non-citizens are not barred from seeking writ relief where no legal disability is shown. Filing on the Original Side does not defeat writ jurisdiction if part of the cause of action arose within the court's territory, so a procedural irregularity alone will not invalidate the petition. At the conciliation stage under the Industrial Disputes Act, disputed issues such as whether an employee is a workman should ordinarily be left to the statutory forum, and a fresh conciliation was not interdicted where the earlier closure had been justified by special circumstances and no illegality was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a foreign company could maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge action of a public authority; (ii) whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for having been filed on the Original Side of the High Court; and (iii) whether the conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could be interdicted at the threshold on the grounds that the employee was not a workman and that an earlier conciliation had been closed.

Issue (i): whether a foreign company could maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge action of a public authority.

Analysis: Article 226 is not confined to citizens. A corporate body, including one incorporated outside India, may invoke the writ jurisdiction where an act of a public authority is complained of as lacking authority of law. The bar under Article 19 is relevant only to citizens, whereas Articles 14 and 21 protect citizens and non-citizens alike. No constitutional or other legal bar was shown against the petitioner approaching the writ court.

Conclusion: the objection to maintainability on the ground that the petitioner was a foreign company was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for having been filed on the Original Side of the High Court.

Analysis: Filing in the Original Side, even if procedurally irregular, does not by itself nullify the court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226. The decisive consideration was that a part of the cause of action arose within the court's territorial jurisdiction because the impugned notices were received at the petitioner's office within that jurisdiction. The precedents relied upon on behalf of the objector were distinguished on facts because those matters involved no part of the cause of action within the Original Side jurisdiction.

Conclusion: the objection based on Original Side filing was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could be interdicted at the threshold on the grounds that the employee was not a workman and that an earlier conciliation had been closed.

Analysis: Whether an employee is a workman under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is primarily a question of fact requiring evidence, and the writ court would not ordinarily undertake such an inquiry at the conciliation stage. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides a complete statutory mechanism, and the petitioner had adequate opportunity to raise all such contentions before the appropriate forum. The earlier conciliation had been closed in special circumstances and liberty had been granted to raise the dispute afresh; once the related civil suit was withdrawn, the reason for the earlier closure no longer survived. No illegality in commencing the fresh conciliation was shown.

Conclusion: the challenge to the fresh conciliation proceeding failed.

Final Conclusion: the writ court declined to interfere with the industrial dispute machinery at the preliminary stage and left the parties to agitate all factual and legal objections before the statutory authority, resulting in dismissal of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: a foreign company may invoke Article 226 to challenge unlawful action of a public authority, procedural filing on the Original Side does not defeat writ jurisdiction where part of the cause of action lies within jurisdiction, and disputed questions such as workman status should ordinarily be left to the statutory industrial dispute forum rather than decided in writ proceedings at the conciliation stage.

---