Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Balak s/o Jagan Bhagat, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking a declaration that respondent no.2 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) erroneously discriminated amongst project affected persons. He prayed to quash and set aside an order dated 1.6.2001 and to direct respondent no.2 to absorb him in their plant at Butibori as per an undertaking given in clause 3(p) of an agreement. The petitioner relied on correspondence between the Regional Manager of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the Manager of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Butibori, and the Regional Officer of M.I.D.C., Nagpur, which recommended his employment on priority. He also issued a notice dated 5.5.2001 calling upon the respondent to appoint him within ten days, which was replied with regret. The court noted that no concluded contract between M.I.D.C. and the petitioner was brought to notice. The court held that mere recommendations or correspondence do not create a legally enforceable right. In the absence of any statutory or contractual obligation, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Enforceability of Rights - Concluded Contract - No concluded contract between M.I.D.C. and the petitioner was brought to notice; mere recommendations or correspondence do not create a legally enforceable right. (Paras 2-3)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Employment - Writ petition seeking direction to absorb in employment is not maintainable in absence of any statutory or contractual obligation. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, as a project affected person, has an enforceable right to be absorbed by the respondent company based on recommendations and correspondence, and whether the impugned order dated 1.6.2001 is liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- No enforceable right without concluded contract
- Recommendations do not create legal obligation
- Writ petition not maintainable for employment without statutory or contractual right
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 147
Writ Petition No.3380 of 2001
A.P. Bhangale, C.V. Bhadang
Mr. S. Marathe for Petitioner; Mr. A.M. Agnihotri and Mr. T.R. Kankale for Respondent No.1
State of Maharashtra through Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Nagpur; Regional Manager (West Zone), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai; The Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking declaration of discrimination and direction for absorption in employment as project affected person.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that respondent no.2 discriminated amongst project affected persons; quashing of order dated 1.6.2001; direction to respondent no.2 to absorb petitioner in their plant at Butibori as per undertaking in clause 3(p) of agreement.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed to be a project affected person and sought employment based on recommendations and correspondence, but respondent no.2 refused to appoint him.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 1.6.2001 by respondent no.2 refusing to appoint the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the petitioner has an enforceable right to be absorbed by respondent no.2 based on recommendations and correspondence?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in absence of any statutory or contractual obligation?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent no.2 discriminated amongst project affected persons and that there was an undertaking in clause 3(p) of an agreement to absorb him.
Respondent no.2 expressed regret and stated that the petitioner cannot be appointed as demanded.
Ratio Decidendi
No concluded contract between M.I.D.C. and the petitioner was brought to notice; mere recommendations or correspondence do not create a legally enforceable right. In absence of any statutory or contractual obligation, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
As such, no concluded contract between the M.I.D.C. and the petitioner is brought to our notice.
It appears that the notice was replied by the Manager (Employment relations) (West) on behalf of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. whereby regret was expressed that the petitioner cannot be appointed as demanded by him.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed writ petition in 2001 after receiving a reply of regret from respondent no.2 to his notice dated 5.5.2001. The petition was heard and decided on 11.9.2014.
