A writ of mandamus can only be issued against a private entity if there is a public duty imposed on such an entity or person and not a mere statutory violation. The action complained of must fall within the public law realm and not in the private law area. Such a duty must be owed towards the person seeking relief.

S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.:---This petition has been placed before us inasmuch as in (Kamgar Sabha v. State of Goa and others)1, 1996(II) C.L.R. 565 and in (Panther Power Kamgar Sanghatana others v. Jhalani Y.C. others)2, 1998(3) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)160 : 1998(I) L.L.J. 66, two Division Benches of our High Court had issued writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein a private employer had acted contrary to the provisions of Standing Orders in one case and in the other a private employer had committed a breach of a statute like Factories Act. When the present petition was placed before another Division Bench for admission the said Division Bench was doubtful whether a writ could be issued against a private entity, without any discernible statutory public duty, as such, to decide upon the correctness of the view taken in the aforesaid two Division Bench judgments, the present matter has been placed before this Full Bench inasmuch as a similar issue arises in the present petition also wherein a writ of mandamus has been sought against a private employer with regard to a breach of a private contract of employment.

2.In the instant case admittedly the petitioner was employed as a Corporate Legal Manager with the respondent No. 1-Company which is a private company. The petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 1-6-1998 rather abruptly. By this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a relief of reinstatement with full backwages. The petition was admitted and no interim relief was granted with a recommendation to the learned Chief Justice to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The present respondent No. 1-Company is a private company which manufactures certain specialised chemicals wherein the present petitioner is employed as a Corporate Legal Manager. There is no dispute that the petitioner is not covered by any Industrial or Labour Law and also that the contract of employment provides for termination of service by giving a month's notice. In fact Clause 7(d) of Contract of employment entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 very specifically provides that after confirmation, contract may be terminated by either party by giving 30 days notice or on payment of 30 days salary in lieu of such notice.

3.By this writ petition the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:---

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ and/or an appropriate order and quash and set aside the termination order dated 1st June, 1998 being Exhibit "J" hereto.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus, order and direction directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to report for work on the same grade and pay-scale before the terminating his services and pay his salary and perquisites as admissible to his post and seniority and continuity of service from the date of his termination, i.e. 1st June, 1998."

In substance by the aforesaid reliefs the petitioner is seeking for an appropriate writ to quash the termination order dated 1-6-1998 and also for a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to allow the petitioner to report back in the same grade and pay scale with continuity of service and seniority and backwages.

4.The basic issue raised in this matter is whether this Court can issue a writ of mandamus against a private employer with regard to breach of a private contract of employment.

5.Shri Pakale the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice the judgment of the Division Bench of our High Court in Kamgar Sabha v. State of Goa and others, 1996(II) C.L.R. 565 wherein the petitioner Union had sought a writ of mandamus against the respondent-company that the employees of the contractor working in a cant