Employee loses writ petition after government company privatized during case proceedings

SC dismissed appeal regarding writ jurisdiction over privatized company. Employee challenged termination before Delhi HC, but during pendency, government company (AIL) was privatized. HC ruled writ petition unmaintainable as privatized entity no longer qualified as "State" under Article 12. SC held writ jurisdiction determined at time of decision, not filing. Since company became private entity not performing public functions, HC lacked jurisdiction to issue writ. Court protected employee's rights by allowing pursuit of remedy through appropriate alternative forum rather than complete non-suit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions against a privatized entity.
2. Impact of the change in the nature of the employer during the pendency of the writ petitions.
3. Effect of delay in disposal of writ petitions on the claims of the appellants.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against a Privatized Entity
The Supreme Court examined whether respondent No.3 (AIL), after being privatized, could be subjected to writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court concluded that once AIL was taken over by a private entity, it ceased to be a "State" or "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, it could not be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court referenced the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111, which outlined the parameters for an entity to be considered a "State." The Court held that AIL, after privatization, did not meet these parameters.

Issue 2: Impact of Change in Employer's Nature During Pendency
The Court addressed whether the appellants could be non-suited due to the change in the employer's nature from a government entity to a private entity during the pendency of their writ petitions. The Court decided that the High Court could not exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ to a private entity not performing any public function, even if the writ petitions were filed when the employer was a government entity. The Court upheld the Division Bench's decision to protect the appellants' rights to seek remedies in another forum.

Issue 3: Effect of Delay in Disposal on Claims
The Court examined whether the delay in the disposal of the writ petitions could be a valid ground to sustain the appellants' claims against the private entity. The Court decided that the delay could not justify maintaining the writ petitions, as the High Court could not issue a writ to a private entity that had changed hands. The Court emphasized that the appellants' rights were protected, allowing them to approach another forum for their grievances.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's decision, which denied equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution to the appellants and directed them to seek remedies in an appropriate forum. The Court noted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would protect the appellants regarding the issue of limitation if they chose to approach another forum. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

---