Dismissed¶22

F.C.L.Workers Union v. P.F.C.and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2025CWP/16456/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: maintainability of writ petition against private entity; Article 226 Constitution of India; locus standi of employees'/workers' union challenging agreement between State and private purchaser; Clause No.15, Agreement dated 11.02.2000, Annexure P-17; Punjab Financial Corporation; master and servant relationship with the State; appointment orders of workmen; respondent No.3 organisation sold to respondent No.4; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J.; writ petition dismissed, civil miscellaneous application disposed of; Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes; Whether reportable: No.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is not maintainable against the private entity (respondent No.4) at all, and therefore this Court will not have jurisdiction over it. ¶16

F.C.L.Workers Union Vs P.F.C.and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CWP-16456-2000 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(218) CWP-16456-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 03, 2025

¶4

F.C.L Workers Union, AITUC Banh Majra, Kurali .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Punjab Financial Corporation and others .. Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶8

Present: Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate, for Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Shailesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶10

None for respondents No. 3 & 4.

¶11

Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

¶13

In the present writ petition, the challenge by the petitionerUnion is to the Clause No.15 of the Agreement dated 11.02.2000 (Annexure P-17) which has been entered into between respondents No. 1 and 2 with respondent No.4, who was the ultimate purchaser of respondent No.3organization.

¶14

The first question which needs to be answered is as to whether present petition is maintainable against respondent No.4 which is the private entity or not. Here the petitioner is an employee-Union, which is challenging an agreement entered into between the State and private entity. The petitioner has to show the locus standi as to how, an agreement with the private entity will give petitioner a jurisdiction to file a writ petition under HARSHA RANI Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. The writ petition 2025.07.04 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CWP-16456-2000 (O&M) 2

¶16

is not maintainable against the private entity at all and therefore, this Court will not have the jurisdiction.

¶17

To overcome the said hurdle, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioners were the employees of respondent No.3 which entity was ultimately purchased by respondent No.4.

¶18

On being asked to show the appointment orders of the workmen who are working with respondent No.3 so as to claim that prejudice has been caused, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such fact which established master and servant relationship between the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 which organization is also a private entity was ultimately sold to respondent No.4 on certain terms and conditions.

¶19

In the absence of existence of any master and servant relationship with the State, no prejudice shown to be have caused to the petitioner-Union have been brought to the notice of this Court, no writ petition is maintainable in the facts and circumstances.

¶20