A writ of mandamus can be issued against a private company to compel it to carry out the directions of a Parliamentary enactment if the company is under a public duty to do so.

P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by eighty-seven workmen of I. D. L. Chemicals Limited, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the company complaining against their lay-off and retrenchment by the said company. These petitioners had been laid-off on 8/02/1980, and they were later retrenched on 7/04/1980. The petitioners claim that their lay-off as well as retrenchment was brought about by the said company contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976 (XXXII of 1976 ). It is on that basis that they pray this Court should issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or nay other appropriate writ or direction directing Commissioner of Labour, the first respondent herein to hold that their lay-off and retrenchment were in violation of the statutory provisions and are, therefore, null and void and to direct the said company to continue them in service with back wages.

( 2 ) THE Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad although served with rule nisi of this Court, entered no appearance and filed no counter. He virtually remained ex parte. The company, the second respondent, had filed a counter and contested this application. The company while admitting the facts relating to lay-off and retrenchment and feebly attempting to justify the same raised an important question relating to the competence of this Court to issue a writ to the aforesaid company under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The companys contention is that it was merely an association of private individuals incorporated under the Companies Act like many other companies and that its activities were purely private in nature without there ever being any control exercised by it over others or its activities being shared or participated in by the State or Central Governments. The company pleaded that it had no public duties to perform or responsibilities to discharge and that, therefore, it is not a proper person to be reached under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In paragraph 3 of its counter, the company said.- "it is well settled that no writ can lie against a company merely incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the second respondent is one such. It is not attracted to "other authorities" within the ambit of Art. 12 of the Constitution and falls entirely outside the purview of the connotation of a State. The second respondent is not a corporation established by a statute and muchless, an instrumentality or agency of the State. The activities of the second respondent are purely private activities. No control over its functions is exercised by the State and the functions carried by the second respondent are not public functions. The second respondent is neither a statutory company nor one having public duties or responsibilities imposed on it by a statute. It is, therefore, submitted that no question of a writ of any kind, whether of mandamus or otherwise, being issued against the second respondent-company would arise. "

( 3 ) ON merits, the company justifies the lay-off on the ground of 30 per cent, power-cut imposed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board on the supply of electricity to all industries, with effect from 4/09/1979, and also on the ground of non-availability of high speed diesel oil. According to the company as the lay-off was due to power cut and non-availability of diesel oil, no question of obtaining previous permission of the State authorities as provided under the Industries Disputes Act could arise.

( 4 ) REGARDING retrenchment the case of the company was that after the expiry of 45 days from the date of lay-off, the 87 workmen could be retrenched by the company in pursuance of the second proviso to S. 25c of the Industrial Disputes Act after giving them one months notice as require under clause (a) of S. 25f or after paying them the compensation due to them under that section and as that had been done no cause for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document