Praga tools india

Number of Members -. Previous Names Login to view previous names. Add to Cart. Graphical report containing historical financial performance. Click Here to view financial report of Infosys Ltd. Lifetime access to all documents Download all 79 documents in one click View Events Timeline - List of all company events since inception. Prosecution Details S. If the company has changed line of business without intimating the Registrar or is a diversified business, classification may be different.

We make no warranties about accuracy of industrial classification. Update Information We are adding and updating information about hundreds of thousands of companies every day, and periodically add companies to the queue for being updated. Update Information. The letter relied upon by the single judge did not raise any industrial dispute but only a question regarding wage structure. The bench however held that the company being one registered under the Companies Act and not having any statutory duty or function to perform was not one against which a writ petition for a mandamus or any other writ could lie but held that that the impugned agreement was illegal and void and dismissed the writ petition subject to the said declaration.

The Supreme Court hearing the appeal held that the high court was right in claiming the writ petition was not maintainable. An application for mandamus will not lie for an order of restatement to an office which is essentially of a private character nor can such an application be maintained to secure performance of obligations owed by a company towards its workmen or to resolve any private dispute.

The appeal was however against the declaration of the high court after holding the petition not maintainable. It is fairly clear that such a declaration can be issued against a person or an authority or a corporation where the impugned act is in violation of or contrary to a statute under which it is set up or governed or a public duty or responsibility imposed on such person, authority or body by such a statute.

The court observed that An order of mandamus is, In form, a command directed to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to 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 an official body. The High court relied upon two decisions of this court as justifying it to issue the said declaration but neither of these two decisions is a parallel case which could be relied on. These cases were not cases where writ petitions were held to be not maintainable as having been filed against a company and despite that fact a declaration of invalidity of an impugned agreement having been granted.

The court believed that once the writ petition was held to be misconceived on the ground that it could not lie against a company which was neither a statutory company nor one having public duties or responsibilities imposed on it by a statute, no relief by way of a declaration as to invalidity of an impugned agreement between it and its employees could be granted.

The High Court in these circumstances ought to have left the workmen to resort to the remedy available to them under the Industrial Disputes Act by raising an industrial dispute thereunder. Kavadi Guda, Secunderabad. Machinery Tools Dealers For Construction. Tools Dealers For Construction. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Begumpet, Hyderabad.

Pipes, Chains, Locks, Taps, Pumps. Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Plastic Injection Moulding Machine Manufacturer.

Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. Support Bracket Manufacturer. Tools Manufacturer. He also held that there was no proof of the said union having entered into the impugned agreement in collusion with the company. He further held that the union by its letter dated April 5, , had raised an industrial dispute and had thereby requested that the question of retrenchment should be settled between the parties, that the said dispute with the consent of the company and the union was brought for conciliation before the conciliation officer and that the impugned agreement, having been brought about in the course of the said conciliation proceedings, was binding on all workmen including the petitioners in the writ petition despite the fact that they were members of the sabha and not of the union.

In this view the learned Single Judge held that it was not necessary for him to decide the preliminary objection raised by the company that no writ petition for a mandamus could lie against it.

He dismissed the writ petition on merits on the basis of the aforesaid findings given by him. The Division Bench held that the said letter raised only the question of revision of wage-structure and other demands but not the question of retrenchment. The Division Bench therefore held that there was nothing on record to show that retrenchment was the subject-matter of any conciliation before the conciliation officer and therefore any agreement conferring on the company the right to retrench so long as the said earlier settlements were not terminated was invalid in spite of the conciliation officer having given his assent to, and affixed his signature on it.

The learned Judges however, held that the company being one registered under the Companies Act and not having any statutory duty or function to perform was not one against which a writ petition for a mandamus or any other writ could lie.

No such petition could also lie against the conciliation officer as on the facts of the case that officer did not have to implement the impugned agreement. The Division Bench, however, held that though the writ petition was not maintainable it could grant a declaration in favour of three workmen, namely, appellants 6, 16 and 25 before it, that the impugned agreement was illegal and void and dismissed the writ petition subject to the said declaration.

The company challenges in this appeal by special leave the validity of this judgment making such a declaration. Thus the only question which arises in this appeal is whether in the view that it took that the writ petition was not maintainable against the company the High Court could still grant the said declaration.

In our view the High Court was correct in holding that the writ petition filed under Art. The writ obviously was claimed against the company and not against the conciliation officer in respect of any public or statutory duty imposed on him by the Act as it was not he but the company who sought to implement the impugned agreement. No doubt, Art. But it is well understood that a mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of which the one who applies for it has a sufficient legal interest.

Thus, an application for mandamus will not lie for an order of restatement to an office which is essentially of a private character nor can such an application be maintained to secure performance of obligations owed by a company towards its workmen or to resolve any private dispute. Union of India 1. In Regina v. Therefore, the condition precedent for the issue of mandamus is that there is in one claiming 1 [] S. It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body.

A mandamus can issue, for ins-Lance, to an official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings.