Court dismisses writ petitions challenging employee retrenchment, citing statutory remedy availability.

The court dismissed both writ petitions challenging the retrenchment of 297 employees by PTI, citing the availability of a statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and the lack of exceptional circumstances warranting writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that disputed factual issues and authorization concerns were better suited for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The interim order was vacated, related applications were dismissed, and future writ petitions were instructed to disclose exceptional circumstances when alternative remedies exist.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Amenability of PTI to writ jurisdiction.
2. Retrenchment of 297 employees by PTI.
3. Authorization of petitioners to file writ petitions on behalf of retrenched employees.
4. Maintainability of two writ petitions seeking identical reliefs.
5. Existence of alternative statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. Disputed questions of fact regarding retrenchment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Amenability of PTI to Writ Jurisdiction:
The petitioners argued that PTI is amenable to writ jurisdiction as it satisfies the public function test. The respondent countered that PTI is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, not a state or public authority, and does not perform a public function, thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The court did not adjudicate this issue as the writ petitions were dismissed on other grounds.

2. Retrenchment of 297 Employees by PTI:
The petitioners challenged the retrenchment on various grounds, including violations of the Industrial Disputes Act, Factories Act, and Working Journalists Act. They claimed that PTI did not follow the principle of 'last come first go', did not display the seniority list, and did not provide proper notice or compensation. The respondent contended that the retrenchment was due to a lack of work and was carried out following Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, with proper notices and compensations paid. The court found that the retrenched employees have a statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and no exceptional circumstances were made out to exercise writ jurisdiction.

3. Authorization of Petitioners to File Writ Petitions:
The respondent challenged the petitioners' authority to file the writ petitions on behalf of the retrenched employees, arguing that there was no authorization or documentation supporting their representation. The petitioners later submitted documents claiming authorization, but these were filed beyond pleadings without court permission and were disputed by the respondent. The court found that the petitioners failed to show authority to file the writ petitions as on the date of filing.

4. Maintainability of Two Writ Petitions Seeking Identical Reliefs:
The respondent argued that the second writ petition (W.P.(C) 10605/2018) was filed without disclosing the first writ petition (W.P.(C) 10596/2018) and made a false declaration. The court noted that the second petition should not have been entertained if the first was disclosed and found no justification for filing two identical petitions.

5. Existence of Alternative Statutory Remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act:
The court emphasized that the Industrial Disputes Act provides a complete code for resolving industrial disputes and that the retrenched employees have a statutory remedy under this Act. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, reiterating that writ petitions should not be entertained when an alternative remedy is available unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The court found no exceptional circumstances in this case.

6. Disputed Questions of Fact Regarding Retrenchment:
The court noted that the writ petitions involved disputed questions of fact, such as the availability of work for retrenched employees and compliance with statutory provisions. These disputes require evidence and cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. The court held that such issues should be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ petitions on the grounds that the retrenched employees have a statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and no exceptional circumstances were made out. The court vacated the interim order and dismissed the related applications. The court also directed the Registry to ensure that future writ petitions disclose exceptional circumstances if an alternative remedy exists.

---