-    the action of the registrar was challenged through a writ.

iii    IT IS AGAINST ANY DIRECTION, OR INSTRUCTIONS, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT

iv    IT IS CALCULATED TO DISTURB THE PEACEFUL AND ORDERLY WORKING OF SOCIETY OR

v     IT IS CONTRARY TO THE INTEREST OF THE SOCIety

       the taking of disciplinary action against an erring employee is not intended to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society, nor can it be said that it is ultra vires of the objects of the society

     registrar’s order struck down

u.p. geep industrial syndicate

vs

geep ind. syndicate union [1999 ii llj 1197 hc-kar]

     can standing orders provide for matters not listend in the schedule to the industrial employment standing orders act 1946

       the certified standing orders can not provide for a matter not listed inthe  schedule to the industrial employment (standing orders) act 1946

r balaji singh

vs

hindustan machine tools ltd

[decision of karnataka hc in writ appeal

no.565 of 1997 delivered on 09.06.1999]

     a 12(3) settlement revised benefits retrospectively and benefits were not extended to employees who quit employment during the retrospective period is denial of benefit to such employees justified

       there is nothing wrong in employer denying benefits to those who quit the company for taking up greener pastures elsewhere.

indian oxygen employees union

vs

b.o.c. india ltd [2000(84) flr 251-HC-mad]

or

chemplast sanmar ltd

vs

mettur chemicals thozhilalar sangam [2000-i-llj-1335-hc-mad]

-    normally the high courts can issue writs only against government/public institutions

-    can high courts issue writs against private institutions and if so, under what circumstances

-    can a writ be issued against a private institution for enforcement of a settlement

·      a private body which is not a ‘state’ under

article 12 of the constitution is not generally amendable to writs under article 226

however writs will issue against private institutions/persons under the following circumstances:

a.   to protect the fundamental rights declared under part-iii of the constitution to prevent outrageous injustice

b.   if there is no equally convenient remedy and there is public duty to be enforced on private person

c.   the implementation of a settlement under section 12(3) of the I.D., ACT IS NOT A PUBLIC DUTY AND NO WRIT WILL LIE 

pepsi foods ltd

vs

bharat coco cola ltd [1999 ii llj 1140 hc-del]

     the contract of employment in pepsi had a stipulation that  employees quitting service should not serve their competitors for 12 months after separation

     is this post retirement restrant clause legally enforceable

-    any such post separation restarining clause would be in clear violation of section 27 of the indian contract act 1872

-    such restraining clauses are unenforceable, void and against public policy

     what is prohibited by law cannot be permitted by courts through injunctions

-    free, fair and uninterrupted competitions is the life of trade and business.  this freedom  in free market economy has to be zealously protected

-   in the larger interest of free trade and business.