TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1997, 05.11.1997 and 19.02.1998, R1 announced VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme), requiring the willing employees to apply in the prescribed format by making it clear that once the application for VRS was submitted, the same would be irrevocable. The petitioners herein/employees of R1, who desired to avail the VR Scheme, responded to the same. Consequently, they were relieved on 31.3.1998 and their benefits were calculated on the basis of the then prevailing basic and Dearness Allowance. While wage revision negotiations were going on, the last wage revision expired on 31.12.1996 and the next revision was due from 01.01.1997. The petitioners being officers, by virtue of the Circular dated 12.07.2000, revision of pay scales, D.A. etc. was announced with effect from 01.01.1997. 3. So pointing out the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the grievance of the petitioners that though they were paid the difference in basic pay and D.A. as well as the difference in gratuity, P.F., privilege leave, notice pay, etc., unfortunately, difference on the VRS amount which became due consequent upon the pay revision was not paid to them. Handful of letters sent did ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... advance and added that, therefore, it is not legally tenable for the respondents to say that prerogative writ of mandamus is confined only to public authority to compel performance of public duty. The public authority for them mean every body which is created by statute and whose powers and duties are defined by statute. According to the learned counsel, having regard to Article 226 conferring wide powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs, there is no restraint for this Court to accede to the prayer of the petitioners despite the fact that the present petition lies against purely a private entity. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents-2 to 4, by referring to the counter affidavit, mainly raised a question on the maintainability of the writ petition seeking mandamus against a Private Concern. He stated that when VRS was introduced by the first respondent-company which was then a Government of India Undertaking engaged in the business of manufacturing Telecommunication Equipments, the employees including the petitioners responded to the same and consequently, the benefits promised to them under the scheme were duly disbursed and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainable against a private concern deserves dismissal at the hands of this Court 8. In support of their contentions, both the learned counsels appearing for the respondents placed heavy reliance upon an order, dated 17.02.2010, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.6325 of 2004. By stating that it was a similar case between the HTL Retired Employees Welfare Association and the first respondent & 2 others, learned counsels pressed much into service the observation in para No.6, which runs thus:- 6. In similar circumstances, in respect of the very same first respondent-company, a Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No.416 of 1998 in the Judgment dated 14.03.2007 relying upon the earlier judgment reported in 2003 (3) LLN 1078 (P.Subban v. H.T.L. Ltd.,) particularly with reference to para 12 of the said judgment, which is as follows:- 12. Having regard to all these aspects, I think it is a fit case where a writ can no longer be issued in view of the changed circumstances, namely, privatisation of the respondent. Therefore, I follow the course adopted in the similar Writ Petition No.14425 of 1995 dated 19 July, 2002 (the entire order in this case is g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court in W.P. No.6325 of 2004, judgment rendered by a Division Bench in W.A. No.416 of 1998 and the decision rendered in Subbans case do not mention about Andi Mukta. But, essentially it must be pointed out here that exactly what the ratio laid down in Andi Mukta was already outlined by the Honble Apex Court in Rohtas Industries Limited and another v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union and others (Manu/SC/0354/1975) and that what was now argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to Andi Mukta for issuance of a writ even against a private person in the given set of circumstances was also the same limb of argument before this Court in Subbans case by referring to the Apex Court's decision in Rohtas Industries. In fact, this Court in Subban's case recorded the said submission thus, "6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1976 (I) LLJ 274 (ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. ROHTAS INDUSTRIES STAFF UNION AND OTHERS) in support of his contention that a writ would be maintainable even against a person depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The observation in the af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ratio laid down in Andi Mukta was not taken note of. As I pointed out already, though Andi Mukta was neither referred to nor brought to the notice of this Court, very same ratio laid down earlier was very well taken note of by this Court and it was clearly held that these type of cases are not the ones to be categorized as those involving monstrous situation so as to largely and freely distend the scope of writs to a private body. Therefore, I hardly find any reason or logic to act on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner citing Andi Mukta case. 12. Even otherwise, the decision in Andi Mukta itself clearly spells out two exceptions to be borne in mind while writ courts dealing with the cases relating to private bodies. It would be of much relevance to quote below the exact wordings from para No.16 of the decision, 16. If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to Mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. Testing the p....