Article 226 writ jurisdiction is unavailable against private schools for purely contractual employment disputes.

The first respondent, a teacher employed by the appellant private matriculation school, challenged the management’s order dated 3 May 2021 relieving her from service.

The writ court treated the order as one of termination and, noting that she had subsequently attained the age of superannuation, directed the school to make her full and final settlement within six weeks.

In appeal, the school contended that the order was not punitive termination but retrenchment arising from a workforce-reduction decision during the COVID-19 pandemic, following discussions with the teacher, and that the order itself provided for full and final settlement.

The respondent argued that the school was governed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 and that the writ petition was maintainable because principles of natural justice had allegedly been violated.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a privately managed matriculation school in a dispute concerning the cessation of an employee’s service.

2. Whether the management’s order dated 3 May 2021 constituted punitive termination requiring compliance with disciplinary procedures, or was merely an order of retrenchment/reduction of workforce.

3. Whether the writ court was justified in directing payment of full and final settlement after holding that the challenge to the employee’s removal had become infructuous upon her attaining superannuation.

Article 226 ordinarily does not permit the High Court to adjudicate purely contractual disputes between employees and private institutions unless the respondent is performing a statutory or public duty involving a positive legal obligation.

Relying on Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Immanuel, the Court held that mandamus does not lie against a private body lacking a statutory or public duty.

Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani establishes that a writ may issue against a non-State body performing public duties or subject to statutory obligations, but not merely because it is regulated or performs an activity having general public importance.

The Court also applied the principles in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Lakshminarayanan, and S. Sundaram v. ICICI Bank Ltd., under which private bodies are not ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction in disputes arising from private employment contracts unless violation of a statutory obligation or public duty is shown.

The Court further distinguished retrenchment or workforce reduction from punitive termination requiring disciplinary proceedings.

The Court found that the appellant school was a private matriculation institution and that the respondent’s grievance concerned the private employer–employee relationship rather than enforcement of a statutory or public duty.

Mere regulation of matriculation schools, without identification of a specific statutory obligation breached by the management, did not satisfy the public-function test under Article 226.

The impugned order stated that the management had decided to reduce its workforce, had discussed the matter with the respondent, relieved her from service, and would provide full and final settlement; it did not impose a disciplinary stigma or penalty.

Accordingly, the writ court proceeded on an incorrect characterization of the order as punitive termination.

Since the respondent had also reached superannuation, the Court held that any surviving monetary claim could be pursued before the competent civil court or authority under the applicable school-regulation framework, but the writ remedy was unavailable.

It further held that the order dated 3 May 2021 was one of retrenchment/workforce reduction and not punitive termination requiring disciplinary proceedings.

The writ court’s order dated 21 November 2023 in W.P. No. 12823 of 2021 was therefore set aside, and the writ appeal was allowed without costs.

The respondent was left at liberty to pursue any unpaid monetary claim before the appropriate court or authority under the applicable law.