Writ jurisdiction over private employment contracts requires a public law element; purely contractual termination disputes are not ordinarily enforceable in judicial review.

Article 226 writ relief against a private employer is generally unavailable where termination arises from a purely contractual employment relationship, because mandamus ordinarily enforces public or statutory duties and requires a public law element. The Court distinguished public sector and statutory body cases on arbitrary termination and public policy, holding that those principles do not automatically apply to ordinary private employment contracts. The termination clause and termination orders were therefore not struck down in writ jurisdiction under public policy or Section 23 of the Contract Act, and any challenge was left to ordinary civil or labour remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of mandamus or other writ remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies against a private employer in relation to termination of employment governed by contract. (ii) Whether the impugned termination clause and termination orders could be struck down as void on the basis of public policy and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of mandamus or other writ remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies against a private employer in relation to termination of employment governed by contract.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide, but it is principally a public law remedy. A writ of mandamus is ordinarily intended to secure performance of a public or statutory duty. It may issue against a private body only where the body is discharging a public function and the action complained of contains a public law element. Purely contractual disputes between private parties, including disputes arising from private employment contracts, are not normally enforceable through judicial review. On the facts, the employer's decision to terminate services was held to arise from a private contract and not from any public duty.

Conclusion: The writ remedy was not available to enforce the purely contractual employment dispute.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned termination clause and termination orders could be struck down as void on the basis of public policy and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Analysis: The decisions dealing with public sector undertakings and statutory bodies, including those where arbitrary termination clauses were tested against Article 14 and public policy, were distinguished. Those principles were held not to apply automatically to private employers governed by ordinary employment contracts. The agreements here were not shown to involve a public law obligation or a statutory framework comparable to the public sector cases. Questions concerning the status of the employees and the legality of the termination were therefore left to ordinary civil or labour remedies rather than writ adjudication.

Conclusion: The termination clause was not invalidated in writ jurisdiction on the ground of public policy.

Final Conclusion: The declaration granted by the High Court was set aside, the challenge to the writ maintainability failed in the private employment dispute, and only the limited relief expressly allowed by the Court survived while the other matter stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 can be invoked against a private body only when the challenged action discloses a public function or other public law element; purely contractual employment disputes ordinarily lie outside writ jurisdiction.

---