Writ against a private body will lie only when it performs public function.

Markandey Katju, C.J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, dated April 26, 2004.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. We have perused the judgment of the learned single Judge and other papers, and are of the opinion that the said judgment cannot be sustained.

4. The writ-petitioner had prayed for a writ of declaration to declare that portion of the notice of the respondents in the writ petition (the present appellants), by which the appellants required its workmen listed in the annexure to it to report at Limbasi, Gujarat to work under the third respondent in the writ petition, namely, G.E. Lighting India Private Ltd., to be illegal and unenforceable. The consequent individual order of transfers issued to the members of the writ-petitioner-union were also challenged.

5. The writ-petitioner is a trade union and the first respondent is a company running a factory at No. 46, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Hosur, Tamil Nadu, where the members of the petitioners-union were employed. The writ-petitioner alleged that there was wage settlement entered into by the petitioner-union and the first respondent on September 10, 1999 for a period of three years, which expired on August 4, 2002. It was alleged that the first respondent-company had been removing production machinery from Hosur plant to Pondicherry and Karnataka plant gradually after the wage settlement. The first respondent-company had applied for permission for lay-off under Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was rejected on October 17, 2000.

6. Admittedly, there is a provision in the Certified Standing Orders of the first respondent company that the employees are required to be transferred anywhere in India. On September 3, 2002, lock out was imposed by the first respondent- company, which was lifted by the impugned notice dated, March 2, 2004.

7. The writ-petitioner-union submitted a (memorandum, dated August 21, 2002, to the Labour Commissioner raising the dispute of wage and lock out. It was alleged in the writ petition that the Joint Commissioner of Labour without any request from the writ-petitioner- union was seeking to include the issue of transfer of workmen to Limbasi in the failure report.

8. Sri V. Prakash, learned senior counsel who appeared for the petitioner-union in the writ petition submitted before the learned single Judge that the management taking advantage of the clause available in the Certified Standing Orders that the workmen are liable to be transferred to any place, is seeking to transfer them to G.E. Lighting India Private Ltd., which is a different entity.

9. Admittedly, the appellant company G.E. Power Control India Private Ltd., and G.E. Lighting India Private Ltd., have come under one management from January 1, 2004. As a result of the aforesaid decision, all the workmen of the Hosur Factory in Tamil Nadu have been relocated to the new manufacturing facility of the company at Limbasi in Gujarat giving them relocation benefits with effect from March 3, 2004. It was alleged by Sri V. Prakash, learned senior counsel before the learned single Judge that various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated by the impugned decision.

10. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we may mention that ordinarily no writ lies against a private body except a Writ of Habeas Corpus vide Praga Tools Corporation v. Imanuel (1969)IILLJ479SC , Chandra Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational Research (1992)ILLJ331SC , Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge 1991 (1) A.W.C. 213, and Tekraj Vasandi (alias) K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India (1988)ILLJ341SC . There are no doubt certain exceptions to this rule, but that is the ordinary rule. Article 226(1) of the Constitution states:

"Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to an