Petitioners are working as workmen in SIEMENS Limited. Their grievance in the present writ petition is that they are not continued beyond the age of 58 years and till they attain the age of 60 years. According to petitioners, the respondent company has establishments in various parts of the country including the one at Hyderabad, where petitioners are working. In the matter of fixation of age of superannuation, company is not adopting the uniform yardstick or policy. In some of the Units, employees are continued till they attain the age of 60 years and in some other units, like one in Hyderabad, employees are made to retire on attaining the age of 58 years and, therefore, such action is arbitrary, discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Balamukund for Mr. Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent company.

3. As the Court entertained doubt on maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue mandamus on the 2nd respondent company to continue the petitioners in service beyond the age of 58 years, learned counsel for petitioners was requested to assist the Court on the issue of maintainability.

4. According to learned counsel for petitioners, SIEMENS though a multinational company, it is required to follow the statues, rules, regulations formulated by the Government of India on all aspects including the service conditions of employees, such as, contribution to the provident fund under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, Gratuity Act, 1972, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and similar enactments and, therefore, respondent company is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of learned single Judge of this Court in Police Officers Association, Adilabad Unit, Adilabad v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai and another 2008 (1) ALD 257.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent company would submit that SIEMENS is a multinational company and is a private company and relationship between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent company is purely contractual. Second respondent company does not answer the description of other authority as enshrined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is not discharging any public duty. Thus, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, more so for enforcement of terms of contract of employment.

6. Writ remedy is available to an aggrieved person alleging that his rights are affected by an order/decision or not deciding in a given time frame by an authority vested with responsibility to discharge public functions and thereby, offending his right. In case of public employment, person can complain of offending right to equality and equal treatment and violation of constitutional safeguards or statutory rules/regulations. A citizen can invoke jurisdiction of writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging violation of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India; rights conferred in Article 19; Right to life as enshrined in Article 21 or violation of other fundamental rights or statutory right vested in him. Even against a private person writ is maintainable if such person is involved in discharging public duty or the cause espoused in the writ petition has public law element or to enforce statutory obligations against him. But, such remedy is not available to a person seeking enforcement of terms of contract vis-a-vis private employer.

7. In the case on hand, grievance of petitioners is that they are not continued in service by their employer beyond 58 years. This claim is based on the premise that in other Units of respondent company employees are continued till they attain the age of 60 years. There is no public law element involved in this case. There is no statutory prescription to continue petitioners till they attain the age of 60 years. It