PRAGA TOOLS CORPORATION versus SHRI C. A. IMANUAL & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 19-02-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 14 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
773 
PRAGA TOOLS CORPORATION 
v. 
SHRI C. A. IMANUAL & ORS. 
February 19, 1969 
[J. M. SliELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Constitution ol India, Art. 226--Wrlt of mandamus whether can be 
iuued against a company-High Court holding petition under Art. 226 to 
be misconceived but still granting declaration to some petitioner1 that 
action of company agt;·inst 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% ol its shares were held by the Union 
Government, 32% by the Andhra Pradesh Government. and 12% by 
private iJ:>dividuals. 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· 
Blow 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 en· 
tered into another agreement with the said union. 
The effeCtt of this 
agreement was to enable the company 
notwithstanding 
the two earlier 
llC!tlements 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 Censtitution µraying 
for 
a writ of mllndamus 
against the company restraining it from giving effect to the said agree-
ment. 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 no~ one again·st which a writ µetition for mandamus or any other Writ 
could be .. 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 th~! th.ough the writ petition was not maintainable it could grant a 
declarallon. m favour of. three of the petitioners that the impugned agree· 
men! was dlega) and void. The competency of the High Court to make 
such a dectaratton was challenged by the company . in appeal before this 
Court. 
HELD : ! i) The c<;>n~ition precedent to the issue of a mandamllJ' 
jg 
that there IS m one clatmmg it a legal right to the performance of a legal 
duty by one against. whom it is sought. An order of mandamllJ' is, in 
form! .a co~mand directed to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal 
reQwri~g him .or them. to do a particular thing therein specified which 
!'ppertams to hIS or •theil' office and is in the nature of a public duty. It 
IS however .no~ necessary that the person or authority on whom the statu· 
tory duty IS n~posed need be a public official or an official body. 
A 
"'f"'damllJ' can issue, for instance, to an official of a sbcioty to compel 
him to carry out the terms ef the statute under or by which the society 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 3 S.C.R. 
is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry 
A 
out duties placed on them by the statutes authorisint! their unctertakings. 
A mandamus would also lie against a company_ constituted bv a statute 
for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities. [778 H-779 CJ 
In the present case the company being a non-statutory body and one 
incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor 
a pubJic duty imposed on it by a statute in respect of which enforcement 
could be sought bY means of a 1nanda1nus nor \\!JS there in its workmen 
B 
any corresponding right for enforcement of any such statutory or public 
duty. The High Court therefore was right in holding that no writ petition 
fo'r a mandarnus or an order in the nature of niandanuts could lie against 
the company. [779 0-El 
Sohan Lal v. Union of India, [1957] S.C.R. 738, Regina v. Industrial 
Court & Ors., [ 19651 l Q.B. 377, R. v. Lewisham Union. [18971 I Q.B. 
498, 501, Mc. Clelland v. Northern 
Irelan,/ General Health 
Servica 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.