JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - The petitioner seeks a mandamus commanding the opposite parties to take work from petitioner and to pay him accordingly in accordance with the previous employment as an Assistant Store Keeper or Field Assistant. The petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus to make the petitioner a permanent employee. 2. The petitioner has averred that he was appointed as Assistant Store Keeper by the respondents from 1.8.78. Vide notice dated 10.4.86 the petitioner and some other employees are said to have been terminated from the service on the pretext that they had completed the job. A settlement is said to have been arrived between the parties. The petitioner was given appointment afresh. The petitioner was paid Rs. 12,236/- as retrenchment compensation, gratuity, bonus and ex-gratia-payment and be was assured that he would be given a permanent post. Some workmen who had been terminated along with the petitioner, were appointed on permanent post but the petitioner was discriminated. 3. The petitioner's fresh appointment was made in 1986 against the post of Field Assistant but he worked as Store-Keeper. The petitioner was transferred orally on 8.$.1990 from Agra to Salem in South. The petitioner is said to have gone there but was not permitted to join the post by the Manager of the Unit at Salem. He came back to Agra where he was permitted to join again. The petitioner went on leave and after expiry of the leave the petitioner, then wanted to join at Agra but he was not permitted to do so. The petitioner submits that he had made several applications for being absorbed as permanent employee. The petitioner is not being made permanent and this, according to the petitioner is unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent company. Neither work is being taken from the petitioner, nor has be been paid any remuneration. 4. Respondent-Company has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the respondent company was a Madras based Private Company and was not an authority or the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Company is dealing in the business of turnkey contracts for electrical engineering and power development projects in India and abroad and the Company takes contracts. For each contract employees and labourers are engaged locally. The Company has a very few employees. They are engineers and managerial personnel. The Company is dealing in the business of turnkey contracts for electrical engineering and power development projects in India and abroad and the Company takes contracts. For each contract employees and labourers are engaged locally. The Company has a very few employees. They are engineers and managerial personnel. The petitioner is said to have been engaged as temporary workmen as Field Assistant. His appointment dated back to May, 1986. The petitioner, at his own request was posted at Kanpur by a fresh appointment order dated 17.3.88 which was to continue upto 16.9.88. The appointment was subsequently extended. On 12.5.90 he was said to have been transferred to Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu. He is said to have joined there but he quarrelled with the Project Manager and left the place and wanted to join at Agra. Agra office has, therefore, refused to allot him work as he was not transferred to Agra. The petitioner was, thereafter, called to Madras and was offered work at Hosepet (Karnataka). He is said to have reported at Hosepet but refused to work there and went to Allahabad where his wife is employed in Phulpur and he has not reported back to his duty. 5. The contents of the writ petition are denied and allegations made by the petitioner are refuted in the counter-affidavit. It is, however, stated by the respondents that the petitioner continues to be in the employment of the Company and he is free to join his duty as he is posted at Hoscpet (Karnataka). It is denied that the respondent-Company has indulged in unfair labour practice as alleged by the petitioner. 6. A rejoinder-affidavit is also filed by the petitioner and he has refuted some contentions of the respondents and reiterated that the Company was indulging in unfair labour practice. The petitioner wants that he should be given a written order for joining the duty and he was willing to serve at any place, he was posted by the Company. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is much ado about nothing. The Company is admittedly a private company which is neither an authority nor any agency of the State, therefore, writ will not lie against the Company under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is much ado about nothing. The Company is admittedly a private company which is neither an authority nor any agency of the State, therefore, writ will not lie against the Company under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that a Company has certain statutory duties and obligations, therefore, a mandamus would lie against the Company. It is true that if the Company fails to discharge its statutory obligations, mandamus may lie to the Company to adhere to the statutory provisions which bind the Company or which oblige the Company to conduct itself in the manner provided under the statutes. It is rather obligation of the Company to function within framework of the statutory provisions which bind the Company. 8. In the present case the petitioner has referred to Section 25(T) of the Industrial Disputes Act which forbids use of unfair labour practice. In other words it would mean if the respondent Company would have indulged in unfair labour practice, that could be against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and it could not indulge in unfair labour practice notwithstanding the fact that the said Company was a private citizen. The Company has a statutory obligation to perform any legal obligation or duty imposed on it by the statute. From a perusal of the counter affidavit it appears that the Company has not in any manner indulged in unfair labour practice nor has it violated any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or any of the provisions to Section 25 of the Act. The Court is not convinced that the Company has failed to discharge its obligation or duty as imposed on it by law or any statute. 9. The petitioner being an employee of a private Company, has no choice to remain at Allahabad or Agra. He has been posted at Hosepet (Karnataka) and respondent-Company wants him to join at his place of posting but the petitioner has not joined. In view of the offer made by learned counsel for the respondents that let the petitioner join on the place of his posting at Hosepet (Karnataka) then he will he paid his wages in accordance with the provisions of law and Rules of the Company. In fact there is no dispute raised by the Company about the petitioner's service with them. In fact there is no dispute raised by the Company about the petitioner's service with them. It is the petitioner who has started the dispute with a view to being posted at the place of his choice. The mandamus cannot be issued to a Company is this regard. In fact the writ petition itself is not maintainable, because, as stated earlier, this case does not fall within the category of the cases in which mandamus can he granted to a private citizen for committing violation of the statute which is to be obeyed by the private citizen. Authorities reported in Committee of Management v. Chandra Mohan AIR 1978 All. 93 , and Ale Ahmad Abdi's case reported in AIR 1977 Allahabad 539, would not apply to the present case because the respondents have not committed any breach of the statutory obligation or duty. 10. Now that the learned counsel for the respondents has offered to take hack the petitioner in service if he joins his post at Hosepet (Karnataka). Therefore, it is for the petitioner to go to Hosepet and join there. If the petitioner joins at Hosepet within one month from today, the respondent-Company shall pay the petitioner his dues and shall take him in service and pay him in accordance with the Rules which is applicable to his service. 11. No writ can he issued against the Company. Subject to the directions given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as such.