Writ Jurisdictions Under Article 226 Are Not Maintainable Against Private Sector Banks for Contractual Employment Disputes

The Appellants, former employees of private sector banks (ICICI Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank), challenged orders dismissing their writ petitions.

In WA No. 3735/2025, the appellant sought pension benefits after being relieved following an application for Early Retirement Option, which the bank treated as a resignation.

In WA No. 110/2025, the appellant claimed voluntary retirement status for pension purposes, whereas the bank classified his departure as a resignation under Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations.

The primary procedural hurdle in both appeals was whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against private sector banks regarding service disputes.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against private sector banks in matters concerning employer-employee contractual disputes.

2. Whether the "public function doctrine" applies to private banks merely because their operations are regulated by the Reserve Bank of India.

Article 226 applies to any person or body performing "public duties," as established in Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S Trust v. V.R. Rudani.

Mandamus does not lie against a non-statutory body for private contractual disputes as held in Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Immanuel.

Private banking is a commercial activity and regulatory oversight by the RBI does not transform a private bank’s internal personnel management into a "public function" as established in Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas.

Termination by a private bank falls within the realm of contractual relationships as affirmed in Chanda Deepak Kochhar v. ICICI Bank Limited.

The Court analyzed the nature of the dispute, noting it was "purely a dispute between an employer and employee over payment of pension".

Applying the "public function test" from Federal Bank, the Court reasoned that while banking impacts the economy, the internal service conditions of employees in private banks are not governed by statute but by contract.

The Court observed that the Appellants were not seeking to enforce a statutory duty but were attempting to resolve a contractual grievance via writ jurisdiction.

Mere regulation by the RBI for financial stability does not satisfy the requirement of performing a public duty or exercising sovereign power.

The Court dismissed both Writ Appeals without costs, but granted the Appellants liberty to approach a competent civil court or forum for redressal, which should decide the issues on merits uninfluenced by the observations made in the writ proceedings.