Writ Petition Against Transfer Order Issued by Private Entity to Industrial Workmen Not Maintainable Under Article 226

The respondents (workmen) were employed at Bajaj Auto Limited’s plant in SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand. On 19.02.2026, the company issued orders transferring them to its plant in Waluz, Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

The workmen challenged these orders via a writ petition, alleging unfair labor practices and violation of Standing Orders while conciliation proceedings were pending.

On 08.04.2026, a learned Single Judge entertained the petition and stayed the transfer orders, observing that the action appeared "highhanded" and a "harassment" that violated fundamental rights.

The appellant-company filed this intra-court appeal, contending that a writ petition is not maintainable against a private entity for a service transfer governed by contract.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a private company to challenge a transfer order.

2. Whether a transfer order issued pursuant to terms of appointment and Standing Orders constitutes a violation of fundamental rights warranting judicial interference.

The Court applied the principles governing Article 226, holding that a writ does not lie against a private entity that is not "State" under Article 12, nor performing a public duty.

It relied on the precedent Cipla Ltd. v. Jayakumar R. and another (1999) 1 SCC 300, which establishes that if Standing Orders or appointment letters do not prohibit transfer, the employer possesses the inherent power to transfer employees.

Furthermore, it followed the Division Bench ruling in Belrise Industries Limited vs. Badve Engineering Workers Union (2026) regarding the non-maintainability of writs in private industrial disputes where statutory remedies under Labour Laws exist.

The Court reasoned that the learned Single Judge erred by granting interim relief without first addressing the jurisdictional question of maintainability.

It observed that the workmen’s appointment letters and Clause 14 of the certified Standing Orders explicitly authorized transfers across India.

Since the appellant-company is a private entity not performing a public function, and the dispute pertains to a contractual condition of service, the matter falls outside the ambit of Article 226.

The Court rejected the Single Judge's finding of "highhandedness," noting that a transfer according to service conditions cannot be deemed a violation of fundamental rights.

If there were any infractions of Standing Orders or Labour Laws, the appropriate remedy lay with the Industrial Tribunals or Labour Authorities, not the Writ Court.

It held that the writ petition against the transfer order was not maintainable and dismissed it to that extent.

Regarding the prayer for expeditious conciliation, the Court directed the Conciliation Officer to conclude the pending proceedings by 05.05.2026, or within a week thereafter.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.