The Calcutta High Court, in Indian Oil Officers’ Association vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, has observed that body corporate may not only sue or be sued for violation of Article 19 but it may also sue for violation of Article 14 or any other law. This observation was made in a Writ petition preferred by a registered Trade Union against IOC challenging a Memorandum of Understanding purportedly entered into by six members of this Association with the Corporation. It is argued by IOC that the writ was filed by the Association who complained for the infringement of fundamental rights by the Corporation under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Article 19 conferred those rights on citizens only and a body corporate is not a citizen and cannot enjoy any fundamental right under article 19 of the Constitution of India.
The Court observed that “There may be a cause of action which is common to a body corporate as well as its shareholders or members or a cause of action that affects both of them. Often these rights are “co-extensive.. In those circumstances the body corporate or a registered trade union or its members can maintain a writ application. Furthermore, this decision says that a body corporate may not only sue or be sued for violation of Article 19 but it may also sue for violation of Article 14 or any other law.”
The Court said : “An Association has a clear right to maintain this writ application on behalf of its members. This writ, apart from challenging the formation of the agreement, attacks certain clauses therein, namely 4, 11,13,16 and 18. The writ petitioners attack these clauses on the ground that they are violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, and are thus, void and arbitrary. In my opinion, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, this court is competent to adjudge whether certain clauses of an agreement violate the Constitution or the laws. To this extent, public law is involved. Where breach of public law is complained of, this court can intervene. It does not matter whether this public law element arises out of an ordinary contract between two parties. Furthermore, parties cannot contract so as to take away the fundamental or other legal rights of another party.”
Allowing the Writ petition, the Court held that some clauses of the agreement (MoU) tend to unreasonably restrict the fundamental rights of free association, demonstration, expression of speech, opinion etc. granted by Article-19 of the Constitution and the rights conferred on the members of the Association by the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and hence, those clauses are illegal and void ab initio.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS