D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner alleges that his services have been retrenched orally by the respondents-a private limited company. ( 2 ) MR. A. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provision of Section 6n of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act enshrines the statutory liability on the part of the respondents. Therefore, if a body. Individual or person discharging certain statutory duties, failed to fulfil the statutory obligations, the writ jurisdiction can be invoked. Since in the present case, the retrenchment was effected without following the provisions contained in Section 6n of the act, the writ is maintainable and therefore he prays that writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to comply with Section 6n of the Act before retrenching the petitioner. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. ( 4 ) IT would be stretching the concept of instrumentality and agency to an extent that the action on the part of the respondents--a private limited company in retrenching its employees without following Section 6n to be treated as discharge of statutory obligation. Industrial Disputes Act itself provides proper relief in the form of Section 6n and various other provisions. It was only a condition precedent for retrenching the worker that has been provided in Section 6n that as to how the worker has to be retrenched in a manner and condition provided therein. If there is any violation, in that event, that could be corrected through procedure laid down in the said Act. The provisions contained therein does not impose a statutory obligation or liability on the private individual or respondents. It provides the right, remedy and the procedure for governing the relation between the employer and the employee. It is a general provision giving the right in favour of the workman to get the benefit of Section 6n and if it is denied that could be enforced through the remedies provided in the Industrial Disputes Act. But it does not mean that this court would intervene if any violation of Industrial Disputes Act is made by private company. If such a situation is accepted in that event the writ jurisdiction would be led to functional incapacity. But it does not mean that this court would intervene if any violation of Industrial Disputes Act is made by private company. If such a situation is accepted in that event the writ jurisdiction would be led to functional incapacity. It would flood the Court to such an extent that the entire purpose of obtaining the speedy remedy would be frustrated which is a regular experience of this Court where writ petition are not disposed of even for 10 years. ( 5 ) SIMILAR question was involved in Writ Petition No. 13666 of 1999. Subhas Ganguli v. Industrial Tribunal, Agra and another, disposed of on 7. 4. 1999 by this Court wherein it was held that writ petition cannot tie against a private individual on the alleged violation of provisions of industrial Disputes Act. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Tripathi in this respect. ( 7 ) THE writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost. .