Petition Dismissed: Private Entity Not Performing Public Functions

The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the respondent-company, a private entity, was not performing public functions. Therefore, the petition was deemed not maintainable, and the petitioner was advised to pursue remedies through civil law. The court granted the petitioner the freedom to approach the Civil Court for redressal of her grievances.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of harassment and humiliation by a senior official.
2. Coercion to exit from the company.
3. Legality of termination of employment.
4. Validity of Clause 12(c)(ii) of the employment contract under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
5. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private company.
6. Determination of whether the respondent-company is discharging public functions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Harassment and Humiliation by a Senior Official:
The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 3, a Vice-President at the respondent-company, harassed and humiliated her on multiple occasions, including a public leadership meeting. The petitioner claimed that this harassment was linked to her raising issues about business transaction violations.

2. Coercion to Exit from the Company:
The petitioner asserted that she was orally coerced by Respondent No. 3 to exit the company, with the Director of Human Resources allegedly aiding this effort. Despite her meritorious service, she was harassed and ultimately terminated.

3. Legality of Termination of Employment:
The petitioner challenged the termination order dated 24-4-2015, seeking a declaration that Clause 12(c)(ii) of the employment contract was illegal, unfair, and contrary to public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. She requested the setting aside of the termination order and the restoration of her status with all consequential benefits.

4. Validity of Clause 12(c)(ii) of the Employment Contract:
Clause 12(c)(ii) allowed the company to terminate employment with 30 days' notice or payment of 30 days' salary. The petitioner contended that this clause was obtained in a standard form and was unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, and contrary to the doctrine of unconscionability and the provisions of the SEZ Act.

5. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Against a Private Company:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against a private company. The petitioner argued that the respondent-company, by virtue of operating an SEZ unit, was performing governmental functions and thus was an instrumentality of the State. However, the court held that the respondent-company was a private entity engaged in economic activities and not discharging public or governmental functions. The court cited several judgments, including Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, to support this view.

6. Determination of Whether the Respondent-Company is Discharging Public Functions:
The court examined whether the respondent-company was discharging public functions, which would make it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court referred to the SEZ Act and various judgments, including Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, to conclude that the respondent-company's activities did not constitute public functions. The court emphasized that regulatory measures under the SEZ Act did not impart a public duty characteristic to the company's business activities.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondent-company, being a private entity, was not discharging public functions and thus the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner was directed to seek remedy under civil law. The court reserved the petitioner's liberty to move the Civil Court for her grievances.

---