JIALAL KAPUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal directed against the judgment of D. P. Gupta J. , dated 10-5-1974 raising a question as to whether the appellant whose services as Chief Mining Engineer in Zavar Mines, Udaipur were terminated by the Board of Directors of the Hindustan Zinc Limited, a Government company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956, was entitled to a writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the constitution. That depends on whether the Hindustan Zinc Limited, which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Government company') was a statutory body. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine holding that the Government company was neither a statutory body, nor was a public duty imposed on it by a statute in respect of which enforcement could be sought by means of a writ of mandamus, nor was there, in its employees, any corresponding right for the enforcement of any such statutory or public duty and, therefore, no petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus could lie against the Government company.

(2.) IT has now been well established by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that a company incorporate under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 is a non statutory body. In reaching the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to enforce the contractual obligations against the Government company, the learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of their Lordships in Praga Tools Corporation vs. C. V. Imanual (1) and observed: - "however the fact remains that the power to appoint officers and to remove them vests under to Article 72 of the Articles of Association of the Company, in the Board of Directors of the Company which acts under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company, being a limited liability company, registered under the Companies Act is necessarily a separate legal entity and it cannot be said either to be a Government Corporation or an Industry run by the Union Government. The Company being a non statutory body and one incorporated under the companies Act, there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed upon it by any statute, in respect of which enforcement could be sought by means of a mandamus nor the petit oner had any corresponding legal right which he could enforce by means of a writ petition before this Court under Art 226 of the Constitution. In Praga Tools Corporation vs. CV. Imanual a similar question was raised before the Supreme Court wherein the following observation were made by their Lordships in respect of the powers of this Court to issue an order in the nature of mandamus: "therefore, the condition precedent for the issue of mandamus is that there is in one claiming it a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by one against whom it is sought An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed 10 a person, corporation or an iriferi tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. IT is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or official body. A mandamus can issue, for instance, to an official of a society to comp him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies of corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings". The aforesaid observations were made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a writ petition filed by certain workmen challenging the order of a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and the same principles will no doubt govern the case before me. As the Hindustan Zinc Limited is a cornpany registered under the Companies Act and has not been set no under any statute and has no public duties and responsibilities to perform under a statute, it is not possible for this Court to issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Company in respect of an agreement which was essentially of a private character between (he Company and the petitioner, who was its employee In my view, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. " The correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge laying down that a Government company was a non-statutory body and, therefore, it was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Hligh Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution was not assailed before us

(3.) THE appellant has, therefore, not acquired any statutory status under the Metal Corporation (Nationalisation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976 and his cause of action, if any, is against the Government Company viz. the Hindustan Zinc Limited, which is a non-statutory body against which no writ can lie.