SINHA, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal against an order passed by Banerjee, J. on the 16th February, 1966 for a Rule summarily, on the ground that the respondent appeared to be a Government company which is neither the Government nor a statutory body and so, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The learned Judge relied on his own judgment in Prafulla Kumar Sen v. Calcutta State Transport Corporation, AIR 1963 Cal 116 and refused to issue a Rule and dismissed the application. Before us, on the 19th of December, 1966 learned Advocate for all parties agreed that it would merely protract matters if we sent the case back to the court below for issuing a rule, but the more desirable course would be to allow the parties to file affidavits and then decide the matter on the merits. This was done, and we have heard the matter on the merits. The facts which have emerged are as follows: In the application, there were three petitioners, who are now the appellants before us. The respondent is the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Limited, Durgapur. In 1962 the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. a Government company, in its coal Mining Machinery project started recruiting candidates with a view to meet the initial requirements of trained and experienced workers/operators in the plant when it sent into production. Accordingly, 122 candidates were recruited. The way that the recruitment was done was as follows: An offer was made by the Administrative Officer on behalf of the Coal Mining Machinery Project of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. of the nature set out in annexure 'A' to the petition, copy whereof is set out at pages 9 to 12 of the paper book. Candidates who accepted the offer, executed bonds of the nature as set out in annexure 'B' to the petition, copy whereof is set out at pages 21 to 22 of the paper book. The workers recruited were given different scales of pay depending on their qualification, experience and performance at the interview which took place at the time of selection. The scales were as follows: 1. Rs.110-143 (Revised) 2. Rs.140-175 ( ? ) 3. Rs.150-240 ( ? ) While most of the workers obtained practical training on the job in the project, some were also sent to Chittaranjan Locomotive Works for practical training, in such skills or trades for which facilities were not available at the said project at that time. Some of these Workers were also sent to U.S.S.R. for training. During the later part of 1963, when production had initially started, all assessment of these workers operators were made by committees formed by the Project, and they were absorbed in regular production in different scales of pay on the basis of qualification experience and performance. 29 only were retained in their existing scales of pay as they did not fulfill the requisite specification of qualification and experience required for higher scales. They were, however, subsequently absorbed in the regular production establishment in due course on their acquiring the required skill and experience. It is at this time that the list described as an absorption list? in the petition, was made out. Absorption was made in the way mentioned above.
(2.) The respondent company, namely the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. of Durgapur is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 as a private limited company, shares of which are owned by the President of India and his nominees. In 1965 this company was incorporated and took over the Coal Mining Machinery Project of the said Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. It will, therefore, appear that the absorption was made in different scales of pay on the assessment of the qualification, experience and performance of the workers by a special committee. In fact, clause (iii) of the offer of appointment accepted by the petitioners contains the following paragraph: After satisfactory completion of training depending upon the ability displayed during training, you will be offered and appointed on a suitable grade.? In the bond that was executed, an undertaking was given that if the worker refused to serve the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries for a minimum period of five years, on successful completion of training in any capacity as directed by the Corporation, then he would have to pay a penalty namely, to refund to the Corporation on demand the moneys paid to him or expended on his training, traveling expense etc upto an amount not exceeding Rs.10,000/- with interest. On or about the 19th January 1966 a promotion list has been drawn up, in which 32 of the workmen were shown as being entitled to promotion to different posts, on higher scales. This was based on proper consideration of merit, qualification and performance of the worker concerned. In January, 1966 demand for justice was served and on 16th February, 1966 an application was made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The nature of the petition was as follows: It was stated that the absorption list made prior to 1965 by the Coal Mining Machinery Project of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. was made arbitrarily, as well as the promotion list dated 19th January 1966, by the respondent. It is stated that these were done in violation of the rules of natural justice and were discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and the prayer is that the said absorption list and the promotion list should be quashed by a Writ of certiorari and a Writ of Mandamus should be issued directing the respondent to withdraw and cancel and/or forbear from giving effect to the same. In answer to the complaint affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that the application was misconceived and that on the facts and circumstances of this case, no question arises, either of discrimination or of violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. In the court below, the application was dismissed on the ground that, as the respondent is neither the Government nor a statutory body, an application would not lie under Article 226 of the Constitution. We will certainly deal with this point, but having heard the matter on the merits we find that there are a number of insuperable barriers in the way of the success of this application. They may be enumerated as follows: (1) The quashing of the absorption list will affect nearly 500 persons, none of whom are before this court. the setting aside of the promotion list would affect 32 persons who are in the list, none of whom were made parties in the application, and so none are before us. (2) The absorption list was made at a time when the appellants were working under the Coal Mining Machinery Project of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. They were subsequently taken over by the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. in 1965. Neither the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. nor its Coal Mining Machinery Project which drew up the absorption list are before us, and the respondent is a separate entity in law. (3) The application is not only belated and made in the absence of the parties affected, but it bristles with disputed questions of fact which cannot be conveniently decided in this jurisdiction. The nature of the induction of the appellants, the facts about absorption, the terms of the contract and its alleged breach are all facts which are disputed. They cannot be decided without taking evidence. If it is a question of a breach of an agreement, the remedy would be by a legal action and not in the writ jurisdiction.
(3.) Any one of these grounds would be quite sufficient to cause dismissal of this application. In many such matters I have consistently held before that an application of this nature should not be allowed in the Writ jurisdiction. Any order made herein would affect a large number of persons during a long period of time, during which numerous promotions have been made, posting have been effected and any order made in the Writ jurisdiction would violently upset the entire administration of the company concerned. Hence such applications should not be entertained in the Writ jurisdiction. On the facts, we are of the opinion that there arises no question of discrimination either under Article 14 (which has not been distinctly mentioned) or under Article 16 of the Constitution. The workers were recruited for being given training and they were absorbed in different posts bearing different scales of pay according to their efficiency and attainments. Northing has been shown why it should be otherwise, and how there has either been a violation of the rules of natural justice or discrimination violative of Arts. 14, 15 of the Constitution. This again would be quite sufficient to dispose of this application but since a point has been raised and argued before us I will proceed to consider, whether in the circumstances of the case, an application under Article 226 should at all be entertained. In Sohan Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529 at p. 532 Imam J. said as follows: "Normally, a writ of mandamus does not issue to or an order in the nature of mandamus is not made against a private individual. Such an order is made against a person directing him to do some particular thing specified in the order, which appertains to his office and is in the nature of a public duty (Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 11, Lord Simonds Edition, P. 84).";