1967 (5) TMI 28 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amenability of the respondent to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
2. Alleged discrimination and violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
3. Procedural and factual barriers to the success of the application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Amenability of the respondent to writ jurisdiction under Article 226:

The primary issue addressed was whether the respondent, Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Limited, a Government company, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court noted that the respondent is a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, with shares owned by the President of India and his nominees. The court referred to precedents, including Sohanlal v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 529 and Dr. Sudhir Chandra Neogy v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. AIR 1960 Cal. 396, which delineated that a writ of mandamus typically does not issue against private individuals or entities unless they perform public duties or are public utility companies. The court concluded that the respondent, being a Government company, is akin to a private individual and not a public body, and thus, not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for the purposes of protecting service conditions.

2. Alleged discrimination and violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution:

The appellants claimed that the absorption and promotion lists were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The court examined the facts and found that the workers were recruited for training and absorbed in different posts based on their efficiency and attainments. The court observed that the absorption and promotion were conducted based on proper assessment of qualifications, experience, and performance. The court found no evidence of discrimination or violation of natural justice principles. It held that the appellants failed to demonstrate how the actions of the respondent were discriminatory or violated constitutional provisions.

3. Procedural and factual barriers to the success of the application:

The court identified several procedural and factual barriers that impeded the success of the application:
- The quashing of the absorption list would affect nearly 500 persons, none of whom were parties to the application.
- The promotion list would affect 32 persons who were not made parties in the application.
- The absorption list was created by the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, which was not a party to the case.
- The application was belated and involved disputed questions of fact that could not be conveniently decided in writ jurisdiction.
- The nature of the induction, terms of the contract, and alleged breaches were all disputed facts requiring evidence.

The court emphasized that any order in writ jurisdiction would disrupt the administration of the company and affect numerous individuals over a long period. It reiterated that such applications should not be entertained in writ jurisdiction, especially when alternative legal remedies exist.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent, a Government company, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for protecting service conditions. It found no merit in the claims of discrimination and violation of constitutional provisions. The application was also procedurally flawed and involved disputed facts unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.