The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to interfere in a petition filed by a former employee of The Tribune Trust challenging her termination, holding that disputes arising out of private employment contracts do not fall within writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The case, Pooja Taneja vs. The Tribune Trust and Others , revolved around the termination of the petitioner, who had been working with the Trust since 2007. Initially appointed as Manager (MIS), she was later promoted to senior roles, eventually serving as AGM (Realization).
In May 2023, the Trust issued a show cause notice alleging that she had released an incentive amount exceeding ₹25 lakh to an advertising agency without securing pending dues of nearly ₹9 lakh. Her reply was found unsatisfactory, leading to a formal charge sheet and a departmental inquiry.
Following the inquiry report submitted in April 2024, the Trust terminated her services with immediate effect on May 28, 2024, invoking a clause in her employment contract.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of both the inquiry report and the termination order.
Her counsel argued that The Tribune Trust performs public functions and should be treated as falling within the scope of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. On that basis, it was contended that the writ petition was maintainable.
It was further argued that the termination was arbitrary and allegedly driven by mala fide intent, particularly to deny her further promotion. The petitioner also claimed that no charges were conclusively proved during the inquiry and that witnesses had acknowledged her honest performance.
The Trust opposed the petition, maintaining that it is a private entity and not amenable to writ jurisdiction in matters of employment.
Relying on prior Supreme Court rulings, the respondents argued that the petitioner’s employment was purely contractual. They emphasized that the termination was carried out strictly in accordance with the service contract, which allowed termination with notice.
The Trust also contended that any grievance arising from such termination could only be addressed through civil remedies, not through a writ petition.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar examined the issue of maintainability before delving into the merits of the case.
The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction can generally be invoked only where there is a public law element or where service conditions are governed by statutory rules.
Referring to settled legal principles, the Court observed that rules framed by private bodies for internal management do not have statutory force. It further noted that even if an institution performs certain public functions, employment disputes arising purely out of private contracts do not automatically acquire a public law character.
“The relationship between the parties is contractual in nature, lacking any statutory backing,” the Court noted while analyzing the record.
The Court also emphasized that for a writ petition to be maintainable, the action challenged must have a direct nexus with a public duty. In the present case, the termination stemmed from disciplinary proceedings within a private employment framework.
Concluding that the dispute was essentially a private contractual matter, the High Court held that no interference was warranted under Article 226.
“The action challenged… does not involve any public law element to justify exercise of writ jurisdiction,” the bench observed.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies, including approaching a civil court for appropriate relief.
Case Details
Case Title: Pooja Taneja vs. The Tribune Trust and Others
Case Number: CWP-13658-2024 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Decision Date: 13 March 2026
