Shankar, C.J. - (1.)Petitioners, nine in number, are employees of Prajatantra Prachar Samity (hereafter called the 'Samity'). Opposite Party in the petition is the Secretary of the Samity. The prayer of the petitioners is that the orders dated November 15, 1975 and December 26, 1975 (Annexures 1 and 2 respectively) be quashed. The former is a letter issued to one of the petitioners Raghunath Patra by the Secretary of the Samity informing him that as he had already reached the age of 58 years he was being superannuated and retired. The latter is a letter to the President of Cuttack Press Workers' Union issued by the :Secretary in reply to a communication sent by the said Union stating in substance that the decision taken by the Samity that its employees would retire on attaining the ase of fifty-eight years was justified.
(2.)The petition is contested on several grounds. It is urged that the Samity is a private institution and a registered trust created to undertake literary and cultural activities by publishing newspapers and periodicals and to encourage other activities of like nature and has no statutory duty or obligation violation of which can be remedied under the writ jurisdiction; that the averments in paragraph 9 of the petition that the employees of the Samity
"usually and ordinarily retire from their employment either on the event of their death or on the event of perpetual illness or on the event of their voluntary abandonment of the employment"
is not correct and that in almost all industries in the country "the present trend and normal practice as to the age of retirement is 58 years." The petitioners, it is maintained, are not entitled to any relief from this Court.
(3.)The objection pressed on behalf of the opposite party In forefront is that no writ could be issued by the Court against the Samity as it was a private body. In reply it is contended that a writ under Article 226 could go to any person or authority if any statutory right of the petitioners was infringed and that in the instant case as there was a breach oi Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders') Act, 1946 relating to service conditions of the employees of the Samity the rights of the petitioners were infringed and the writ was competent. Strong reliance in support of this submission is placed on Tata Chemicals v. Kailash, (AIR 1964 Guj 265).