Constitution of India, Art. 226-Writ of mandamus whether can be Issued against a company-High Court holding petition under Art. 226 10 be misconceived but still granting declaration to some petitioners that action of company against them was illegal Competence of High Court to pass such order,

The appellant was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913. At the material time 56% of its shares were held by the Union Government, 32% by the Andhra Pradesh Government and 12% by private individuals. On July 1, 1961 a settlement was arrived at between the company and the workmen's union under which the workmen inter alia agreed to observe industrial truce for a period of three years i.e. upto July 1, 1964 and not to resort to strikes, stoppage of work or go- slow tactics. On December 10, 1962 the company and the said union entered into a supplementary settlement under which the company agreed not to retrench or lay-off any of the workmen during the said period of truce. The said two settlements were arrived at and recorded in the presence of the Commissioner of Labour under s. 2(p) and s. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and were to be in force as aforesaid until July 1, 1964. On December 20, 1963, however, the company entered into another agreement with the said union. The effect of this agreement was to enable the company notwithstanding the two earlier settlements to carry out retrenchment of 92 of the workmen with effect from January 1, 1964. Some of the affected workmen filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus against the company restraining it from giving effect to the said agreement. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on merits. In appeal the Division Bench held that the company being one registered under the Companies Act and not having any statutory duty or function to perform was not one against which a writ petition for mandamus or any other writ could lie. No such petition could also lie against the conciliation officer who had signed the agreement, as on the facts of the case it was not he who sought to implement the agreement. The Division Bench however held that though the writ petition was not maintainable it could grant a declaration in favour of three of the petitioners that the impugned agreement was illegal and vold. The competency of the High Court to make such a declaration was challenged by the company in appeal before this Court