( 1 ) THE petitioner in these three writ petitions were employees of a govt Company known as the Karnataka Film Industry Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). Their complaint in these writ petitions is that, their services have been terminated by the corporation without following the principles of natural justice. Their prayer is that the orders of termination of service should be set aside and the Corporation should be directed by the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to reinstate them in its service. It is admitted in the course of the petition that the Corporation is a body incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is not a statutory body and it has no statutory duties to perform. There are no statutory rules governing the conditions of service of its employees. In view of the admitted facts, i am of the view that these petitions cannot be entertained, even though the State Govt has contributed the capital of the Corporation and controls the affairs of the Corporation. ( 2 ) IN Praga Tools Corpn v. G. A. Imanual, AIR. 1969 SC. 1306, the Supreme Court held that a writ in the nature of mandamus could not be issued to the Praga tools Corpn which was a company incorporated under the Indian Companies act and in which the Union of India and the Govt of Andhra Pradesh held 56 per cent and 32 per cent of the shares. The relevant part of the decision of the Supreme Court reads as follows :" The company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute in respect of which enforcement could be sought by means cf a mandamus nor was there in its workmen any corresponding right for enforcement of any such statutory or public duty. The High Court therefore was right in holding that, no writ petition for a mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus could lie against the company. " ( 3 ) THE above view has been reiterated in a later decision in Sabhaji tewary v. Union of India, AIR. 1975 SC. 1329, in which the institution concerned was the council of Scientific and Industrial Research. " ( 3 ) THE above view has been reiterated in a later decision in Sabhaji tewary v. Union of India, AIR. 1975 SC. 1329, in which the institution concerned was the council of Scientific and Industrial Research. The facts that were established in that case were as follows: The Council was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Prime Minister of India was 'the ex-Officio President of the Society. The Governing Body consisted of some persons appointed by the Govt of India representing the administrative ministry under which the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was included, and the Ministry of Finance and one or more members appointed by the Govt of India. The Govt of India could terminate the membership of any member of at one and the same time of all members other than the ex-officio members of the Governing Body. By one of the Rules, the governing Body was entrusted with the power, with the sanction of the govt cf India, to frame, amend or repeal bye-laws not inconsistent with the rules for the administration and management of the affairs of the society. Under the Govt of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was allocated to the department of Science and Technology Notwithstanding these features, the Supreme Court held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial research was neither a department nor an agent of the Union of India and therefore was not an authority within the meaning of that expression in article 12 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) SHRI G. B. Raikar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, tried to derive some support for his proposition that a writ of mandamus could be issued to a company cotrolled by a Govt from the decision of the High court of Madras in V. Ramaiah v State Bank of India, AIR. 1964 Mad, 335. The facts of that case are distinguishable from the present case, because the High Court of Madras was in that case concerned with the interpretation of the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. 1964 Mad, 335. The facts of that case are distinguishable from the present case, because the High Court of Madras was in that case concerned with the interpretation of the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. The distinction between a statutory Corporation such as the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life insurance Corporation and the Industrial Finance Corporation which are statutory in character and companies registered under the Companies Act has been again emphasised by the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR. 1975 SC. 1331. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners. ( 5 ) IT is open to the petitioners to avs. il themselves of the ordinary remedies available to them under any other law. These petitions are therefore rejected without notice to respondents. --- *** --- .