TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an agreement which was essentially of a private character between it and its workmen. The High Court, therefore, was in error in granting the said declaration. Appeal allowed. - 612 OF 1966 - - - Dated:- 19-2-1969 - J.M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ. S.V. Gupte, R. Thiagarajan and A. Aiyar Aiyar for the Appellant. Janardan Sharma for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Shelat, J. The Praga Tools Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the company") is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. At the material time, however, the Union Government and the Government of Andhra Pradesh between them held 56 per cent. and 32 percent. of its shares respectively and the balance of 12 per cent. shares were held by private individuals. Being the largest shareholder, the Union Government had the power to nominate the company's directors. Even so, being registered under the Companies Act and governed by the provisions of that Act, the company is a separate legal entity and cannot be said to be either a Government corporation or an industry run by or under the authority of the Union Government. At the material time there were two rival workmen's union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Industrial Disputes Act, but the scheme of voluntary retirement would be available to the workmen only for a period of 10 days from the date of the agreement. It further provided that the company and the said union had agreed that an attempt would be made to rehabilitate the retrenched persons by helping them to obtain alternative employment and the company had for that purpose contacted public sector and other industries and in particular the Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi for absorption as far as possible of the retrenched personnel. The effect of this agreement was to enable the company, notwithstanding the two earlier settlements, to carry out retrenchment of 92 workmen mentioned in annexure VI thereto with effect from January 1, 1964. Respondent No. 1 and 40 other workmen thereupon filed a writ petition under article 226 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the validity of the said agreement impleading therein the company, the said union and the Regional Assistant Commissioner as respondents. The petition claimed a writ of mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus or any other order or direction restraining the respondents to implement or enfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to decide the preliminary objection raised by the company that no writ petition for a mandamus could lie against it. He dismissed the writ petition on merits on the basis of the aforesaid findings given by him. 28 out of the said 41 workmen who had filed the writ petition filed a letters patent appeal against the said judgment. The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the appeal held : (1) that since the dispute relating to the company's right to retrenchment was already settled under section 18(1) by the said supplementary settlement of December 10, 1962, no industrial dispute could be said to exist or arise until the said settlement was duly terminated under section 19(2), that therefore there could be no valid conciliation proceedings in respect of the question of retrenchment and that the impugned agreement permitting the company to retrench, though it bore the signature of the conciliation officer, was not a valid agreement ; (2) that so long as the earlier settlements were not terminated they held the field ; and (3) that the said letter dated April 5, 1963, relied on by the learned single judge as having raised an industrial dispute regarding retrenchment did not in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned agreement. No doubt, article 226 provides that every High Court shall have power to issue to any person or authority orders and writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, etc. or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. But it is well understood that a mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of which the one who applies for it has a sufficient legal interest. Thus, an application for mandamus will not lie for an order of reinstatement to an office which is essentially of a private character nor can such an application be maintained to secure performance of obligations owed by a company towards its workmen or to resolve any private dispute (see Sohan Lal v. Union of India [1957] SCR 738) . In Regina v. Industrial Court [1965: 1 QB 377 mandamus was refused against the industrial court though set up under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, on the ground that the reference for arbitration made to it by a minister was not one under the Act but a private reference". The court has never exercised a general power " said Bruce J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of the provisions of such statutes. If a public authority purports to dismiss an employee otherwise than in accordance with mandatory procedural requirements or on grounds other than those sanctioned by the statute the courts would have jurisdiction to declare its act a nullity. Thus, where a Hospital Services' Board dismissed a clerk for reasons not authorised by the relevant conditions of service a declaration was granted to the applicant, by the House of Lords ( McClelland v. Northern Ireland General Health Services Boards [1957] 1 WLR 594). Even where the statutory power of dismissal is not made subject to express procedural requirements or limited to prescribed grounds courts have granted a declaration that it was invalidly exercised if the authority has failed to observe rules of natural justice or has acted capriciously or in bad faith or for impliedly unauthorised purposes (see Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40 and Short v. Poole Corporation [1926] Ch. 66, 90, 91). Declarations of invalidity have often been founded on successful assertions that a public duty has not been complied with (see Attorney-General v. St. Ives Rural District Council [1961] 1 QB 366). It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
