JUDGMENT : B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - There was a strike in the Orient Paper Mills between 8th December, 1982 and 28th November, 1983. The Mill then employed about 6,000 persons and the strike for about 11 months was thus definitely a big affair. Due to conciliation, however, the strike same to an end and one of the terms of memorandum of settlement dated 28-11-1983 was that there would be no victimisation on account of the strike. After the settlement had been entered into between the parties, it was found that the management had superannuated 51 employees between the period from February, 1983 to July, 1983. This superannuation was on the workmen reaching the age of 50 years and was itself based on a tripartite settlement reached between the parties on 14-1-1982 which stated inter alia that ... The Union agrees that the workers who are physically and/or mentally unfit may be superannuated by the Company after 50 (fifty) years of age and in that case, preference in employment will be given to one on of such worker who is retired prematurely.... Of the 51 workmen so superannuated, 13 settled their matters with the management and so the Union took the cause of the remaining 38 workmen. A discussion for this purpose was held on 2-12-1983. Thereafter the management issued letters is at Annexures3 and 4 dated 8-3-1984 asking the workmen in question to report for a medical check up before the qualified medical practitioner The Union did not relish this action of the management and instead insisted that the concerned workmen must be taken back in service first whereafter only the question of their superannuation on the ground of physical/mental unfitness could he gone into for which purpose, if necessary, they may be medically examined. The management did not accept the stand of the Union which led the Union to approach this Court in March, 1984 itself by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying, inter alia, for quashing of Annexures 3 and 4 and for enforcing the settlement arrived at, inter alia, on 28-11-1983, one of whose term as already noted, was that there would, be no victimisation on account, of the strike. The stand of the Union is that the superannuation of the 38 workmen was a ease of victimisation on account of the strike. 2. The stand of the Union is that the superannuation of the 38 workmen was a ease of victimisation on account of the strike. 2. The contention of the Union that the present was a case of victimisation has been denied by the management. According to it, the concerned workmen were superannuated because of their inability in performing their duties inasmuch as some of them were unable to move by themselves and others had lost their eye sight and some were suffering from incurable diseases while some were still mentally imbalanced. The reasons leading to superannuation of the concerned workmen nave been summarised in Annexure C/2 enclosed with the further Affidavit' filed on 20-6-1990. It is, however, the admitted position that no medical examination bad been undertaken before superannuating the concerned workmen on their reaching the age of 50 years as against the normal retirement age of 58 years. The management has also taken a point that the present writ petition seeking to enforce a contractual right is not maintainable as it is directed against a Company which is neither a Government Company nor a statutory body nor an instrumentality of the State. 3. It has been strenuously contended by Mr. Palit appearing for the Petitioner-Union that the present was a case of victimisation on account of the strike inasmuch as the workmen had been superannuated without any medical examination whatsoever. To .bring home this aspect of the matter, we have been referred to Secretary, M/s. Spencer and Co. v. Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, 1982 2 L. L J. 36, wherein even examination by an opthalmologist was not regarded as sufficient to superannuate the workman in question on the ground of his physical disability. Reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel on Nanki Satnami and 12 Ors. v. South-Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., (O.J.C. No. 1841 of 1986 and the connected cases disposed of on 3-2-1989) wherein superannuation of an employee on the basis of his physical appearance alone was held to be untenable in law, through the examination was by some doctors. 4. Faced with this situation, it is submitted by Mr. Gobind Das that no material has been placed in the petition by the Union to make out a case of victimisation. 4. Faced with this situation, it is submitted by Mr. Gobind Das that no material has been placed in the petition by the Union to make out a case of victimisation. Learned Counsel states that though in the settlement which was arrived at between the parties on 28-11-1983 something was said in paragraph 5 of the agreement about the taking back of some 300 workmen who had been dismissed during the strike period executing those workmen against whom criminal charges were under investigation or under trial, nothing was said about the taking back of the 38 workmen in question, which would go to show that superannuation of these workmen was not regarded as connected with the strike even by the Union by the time the agreement was arrived at between the parties to call off the strike. As to this, Mr. Palit contends that as about 6,000 workmen were involved 'in the strike which had continued for about 11 months and as no notice of superannuation was given, the Union was not in know that these workmen had been superannuated during the course of the strike and it is because of this that nothing specific was stated in, the agreement except saying that there would be no victimisation on account of the strike. There appears to be sufficient force in this submission of Mr. Palit. 5. But then it is correct that the petition is bereft of .specific plea of victimisation as, except a one-line statement in paragraph 12 wherein has been averred that Annexures-3 and 4 lacked good-faith and were meant to victimise the workmen contrary to the settlement, there are no averments in this regard. It is because of this that Mr. Das has referred to Bharat Iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and Others in which it has been stated in paragraph 9 that victimisation is a serious charge by an employee against an employer and, therefore, it must be properly and adequately pleaded giving all particulars upon which the charge is based to enable the employer to fully meet them. It has also been pointed out in paragraph 10 of the judgment that the onus of establishing the plea of victimisation is upon the person pleading it. It has been further obseved in this connection that mere allegations; vague suggestions and insinuations are not enough. 6. It has also been pointed out in paragraph 10 of the judgment that the onus of establishing the plea of victimisation is upon the person pleading it. It has been further obseved in this connection that mere allegations; vague suggestions and insinuations are not enough. 6. Despite what had been stated in Bharat Iron Works, it cannot be denied that the power of superannuation in the present case was exercise rather casually and without any specific material before the management to dispense with the services of the workmen in question on the ground of their physical/mental unfitness. Though the petition does not contain specific plea of victimisation because of which the management did not feel called upon to produce all the materials it had with it on this aspect of the case, yet from Annexure-C/2 referred above it would appear that as many as 9 workmen were superannuated on the ground of "old age", an equal number on the ground of "old (age) and weak", in case of one it was stated that he "cannot walk without stick", and in respect of 4, the cause shown was "eye sight weak", and in respect of 4, the cause shown was "eye sight weak". Now we fail to understand as to how almost 50% of the concerned workmen could have been superannuated on their reaching the age of 50 years on the ground of "old" age. This definitely shows casualness in dispensing with their services at the rather "young" age of 50. The absence of any medical examination stares one in the face in this context. We are, therefore, satisfied that the management was not in possession of clinching materials, to come to the conclusion that the workmen of clinching materials, to come to the conclusion hat the workmen in question had become mentally and/or physically unfit to warrant their superannuation. 7. The real and next question is as to what relief can be granted to the Petitioners in the present proceeding. It has been contended by Mr. Gobind Das that as the Petitioners are at best trying in seeking to get an order of reinstatement of the concerned workmen to enforce the settlement arrived at on 28-11-1983, the writ Court is not the proper forum to obtain tis relief as the settlement is purely contractual in nature. It has been contended by Mr. Gobind Das that as the Petitioners are at best trying in seeking to get an order of reinstatement of the concerned workmen to enforce the settlement arrived at on 28-11-1983, the writ Court is not the proper forum to obtain tis relief as the settlement is purely contractual in nature. Strong reliance has been placed in this connection by the learned Counsel on the Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Scindia Employees' Union, 1983 Lab.I.C. 759. This aspect of the matter has been dealt within the judgment in paragraphs 16 to 35. Perusal of the same shows that though it was accepted by the Bench following what was stated, inter alia, in The Praga Tools Corporation Vs. Shri C.A. Imanual and Others that writ of 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, it was ultimately held that enforcement of a settlement cannot be said to have any public duty embodied in it. This view was taken after noting the definition of "settlement" as given in Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and what has been provided in Section 18 of this Act. The Bench, while noting the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is intended to secure peace and harmony in the industrial field, came to the conclusion that a contractual obligation between an employer and employee can hardly be said to have the character of a public nature without which the duty in question would not be public duty which alone can be enforced through a writ of mandamus. The Bench concluded in paragraph 25 of the judgment that a contractual obligation regarding any settlement of the present nature is purely a private contract between the parties, to the agreement, namely, the employer and the employee. 8. While on the subject as to when and against whom a writ of mandamus can be issued, we may refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others Vs. V.R. Rudani and Others wherein need for flexibility in this regard to meet the requirement of variable circumstances was emphasised in paragraph 21 of the judgment. V.R. Rudani and Others wherein need for flexibility in this regard to meet the requirement of variable circumstances was emphasised in paragraph 21 of the judgment. Even so, according to this judgment also, the duty which can be enforced through a mandamus has to be a public duty as stated in paragraph 19 though such a duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute as it may be sufficient for such a duty to have been imposed by character, common law, custom or even contract, as pointed out by Professor De Smith in "Judicial Review of Administrative Act", 4th Edition at page 540, which view was stated by the apex Court as would appear from paragraph 21 of the judgment. 9. Thus, the duty to be enforced through mandamus has to be public duty. The enforcement of a settlement of the present nature cannot be said to be enforcement of public duty. In this regard We share the view expressed in Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Company. To satisfy our mind, however, that in case of the present nature also a writ of mandamus can be issued, Mr. Palit has referred us to a Bench decision of this Court in Ratnakar Padhi v. State of Orissa (O.J.C. No, 280/88 disposed of on 28-4-1989). A perusal of that judgment shows that the Court in that case Was concerned with the termination of service of the Chief Welfare Officer which was a statutory post from which one could be removed in accordance with, the statutory rules only. The duties of the Labour Welfare Officer were regarded as of public nature and it is because of this that it was held that the employer who had terminated the service of a person connected with performance of duty of public nature should restore the person concerned in his office. The facts of the present case are entirely different and so the decision rendered in the aforesaid case cannot assist the Petitioners. 10. In the present case, as die services of the employees were terminated without issuance of a notice some assistance .has been sought to be derived in satisfying us that a writ lies from the decision in Sarjoo Prasad Vs. 10. In the present case, as die services of the employees were terminated without issuance of a notice some assistance .has been sought to be derived in satisfying us that a writ lies from the decision in Sarjoo Prasad Vs. General Manager and another wherein retirement of an employee on the basis of the date of birth which was changed without giving the employee an opportunity of being heard was held to be untenable because of which continuation of service was ordered. This case cannot be called in aid of the Petitioners because the maintainability or availability of the writ was not in question in the aforesaid case. 11. The position which thus emerges is that writ jurisdiction is not available to the Petitioners to seek enforcement of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 28-11-1983. Even so, we are of the view that as superannuation in the present case without any sort of medical examination has no legal sanction, as already alluded, it is a fit case where reasonable damages should be awarded to the incumbents in question. In this connection it may be pointed out that even the management had wanted to pay some amount from 3-3-1984 till the medical examination was over as stated in paragraph 6 of the counter to which our attention has been invited by Mr. Gobind Das. We are, therefore, of the view that a reasonable amount as damages ought to be awarded to each of the 38 employees or their legal representatives as it is the case of the employer that some of the employees have died in the meantime. We are of the view that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for employee would be adequate and just compensation for the wrongful termination of their services and for keeping them out of service for about 7 years by now, and we award the same. 12. In the result, the writ application is allowed by awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as damages to be paid to each of the superannuated employees or his legal representatives. This sum shall be paid by opposite party No. 2, namely, Orient Paper Mills, within a period of eight weeks from today. 12. In the result, the writ application is allowed by awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as damages to be paid to each of the superannuated employees or his legal representatives. This sum shall be paid by opposite party No. 2, namely, Orient Paper Mills, within a period of eight weeks from today. During this period, the workmen who are still living shall be examined by an independent medical practitioner and thereafter only orders relating to superannuation touching them shall be passed depending upon the result of the medical examination. It need not be stated that those workmen who shall not be found physically and/or mentally unfit shall be taken back in service in which case, however, while reinstating them no further amount towards arrear wages shall become payable as we have ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for keeping the workmen out of job during the interregnum. 13. Before parting, may we say that though at one stage an argument was advanced by Mr. Gobind das that the petition has become infructuous as of the concerned workmen some had died in the meantime and the remaining had received their dues in full and final settlement of their claims, the submission was not pressed after the attention of the learned Counsel was drawn to one of the terms of the settlement which was that the same would not prejudice the case of the workmen in this petition. This is what has found place in one of the letter exchange between the parties, a copy of which was produced for our perusal by Mr. Palit. D.P. Mohapatra, J. 14. I agree. Writ Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed