Summary
An Article 32 petition seeking a CBI investigation into alleged company irregularities was dismissed without adjudicating the contested facts. Personal contractual grievances between the former employee and company belonged in ordinary civil remedies, already being pursued. Statutory authorities’ existing inquiries remained independent, with lawful action to follow their outcomes. Other applicants could pursue their own grievances before appropriate forums.
Issues
- Whether Article 32 relief directing a CBI investigation or redress of related private grievances should be granted in the circumstances.
Held
- Although no personal relief against the company was sought, Article 32 was not a route for enforcing private contractual rights between employee and employer. Personal service or agreement-based claims belonged in a civil suit or other civil remedy; existing suits were to be pursued according to law. (¶ 16–18)
- The Court had called for and considered status reports from the official respondents concerning inquiries within their respective statutory jurisdictions. Appropriate action under law would follow their completed inquiries; no further relief was granted in this petition. (¶¶ 9, 19–20)
- No opinion was expressed on disputed factual allegations. Authorities, courts and ongoing inquiries were to proceed uninfluenced by the order. Intervening applicants retained liberty to pursue individual or collective grievances before appropriate judicial forums. (¶ 21–25)
Result
Writ petition dismissed with observations preserving ongoing statutory inquiries, pending civil remedies and applicants’ liberty to seek appropriate adjudication; no factual findings on the allegations.