" WRIT " means the the orders issued by the Supreme Court or the High Courts under the powers vested in them under article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India respectively to the Central or State Governments or any authority as defined under article 12 or any person discharging statutory obligations or obligations of public nature in order to enforce the rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The writs can be in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and/or Quo Warranto.
A brief reading of articles 32 and 226 would indicate that a Writ can be issued ONLY by the Supreme Court or the High Courts to any person or authority and for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose.
Normally, therefore, a writ petition is maintainable only against the State or its Instrumentalities or a person holding any public office.
However, the Supreme Court held recently in S.D.Siddiqui Vs University of Delhi and Others that a writ would lie against a private body only when it performed a public function or discharged a public duty. Therefore, we can conclude that an employee can not invoke the writ jurisdiction directly against his employer to enforce his employment rights unless the employer happens to be an "Authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution.
The position is different when an employee files a writ appeal against the orders passed by any Statutory Authority in a disputed claim against his employer.
Pl. treat it as my reply to your private message too.
This is related to the 577 term base case of ONGC which I had already communicated to you.
Sir during my cross-examination at Labour Court Ahmedabad Gujarat by ONGC advocate. the Honourable judge has written in his cross examinatino noting that I did not file writ petition in any of the court when I was not selected for tenure contract after the January 2005 Personal Interview which the court has declared that the January 2005 Personal interview which ONGC had conducted was illegal and invalid by declaring that Section 2(oo)(bb) is/ was never applicable to 577 term base employees.
In this scenario is / was filing writ petition will be applicable to me or I was correct that I did not file writ petition since even if I had filed the writ petition during year 2005 at any of the court like the honourable judge of labour court has quoted in his write up against my cross examination by ONGC , it would become null void and irrelevant against the honourable court order to make all the 577 term base employees permanent and give re-joining from January 2005 onwawrds since they were never out from ONGC as Section 2(oo)(bb) was never applicable to 577 term base employees and I was never terminated nor term completed which ONGC has declared at court till supreme court when the 577 term base case was under deliberation at court.
kindly reply and tell your opinion
When the exercise of conducting interview for the ousted FTC employees was held to be illegal, it becomes non-est. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the failure,if any on your part to invoke the writ jurisdiction against your non-selection based on a non est selection process can not be a valid defence for the ONGC.
That means as per your reply , I understood that ONGC cannot raise the issue of not filing Writ Petition by me after January 2005 personal interview for not selecting me in the tenure contract after January 2005 personal interview , (against the non existent January 2005 Personal Interview as per court declaration), which ONGC conducted for 577 term base employees during January 2005 .
Hope this is the message you are trying to pass to me.