D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition presented by an employee of Hutti Gold Mines company Limited, who was working as an Assistant in the said Company, claiming for the relief of directions to be issued to the second respondent to consider the representations dated 9-8-2000, 26-8-2000 and 14-10-2000 (vide Annexures-C1 to C3 to the petition) and to pass; orders on the same on the premise that the petitioner had attended certain enquiries which is a special duty which in all works out to 77 days. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has also sought for another direction to direct the respondents to sanction special leave of 20 days to the petitioner on the premise that he was engaged in the elections to the Staff and Employees union of the respondent-company etc. ( 3 ) IT is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been compelled to seek such relief in the context of certain enquiry which had been instituted against him by the respondent management on the premise that he had remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 77 days which is sought to be converted into leave as period on special duty etc. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner in his capacity as a General Secretary of the Hutti Gold Mines Workers Union, was in great demand for assisting delinquent employees in departmental enquiries which were being conducted by the respondent-company and as such had to devote considerable amount of time to attend such enquiries and also for undertaking journey to attend and for preparation of cases on behalf of the employees etc. It is also the further case of the petitioner that he has been permitted by the respondent-company itself on certain occasions and they have treated such periods as on special duty. ( 5 ) THE area of dispute appears to be the periods when the petitioner had not been expressly permitted by the employer for attending the enquiry and the periods during which the petitioner had undertaken the journey to reach the place of enquiry etc. ( 5 ) THE area of dispute appears to be the periods when the petitioner had not been expressly permitted by the employer for attending the enquiry and the periods during which the petitioner had undertaken the journey to reach the place of enquiry etc. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has no legal right, much less any statutory right for issuing of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant any leave to the petitioner or to treat the said period of 77 days as on special duty. It is essentially a matter which will have to be regulated by an employer. If the employer had expressly permitted the petitioner to be as on special duty on certain occasions, it clearly shows that it is the discretion of the respondent employer which enabled the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and to be treated as on special duty. It is obvious from the petition pleadings and the respondents' statement of objections that the respondents have now instituted an enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the periods not covered by any prior express authorisation or permission by the employer. ( 7 ) ASSUMING that the petitioner has justifiable and legitimate defence or effective answer in this regard, it is open to the petitioner to make use of the same as a defence in the enquiry itself. It is not for this Court to stop the domestic enquiry in respect of misconduct of employees in private organisations such as the respondent-company. In fact, the respondent-company is roped in within the definition of Article 12 of the constitution as it is a State owned company and not because it carries on any activities which are otherwise to be discharged by the State. ( 8 ) IN a matter of this nature involving purely an employer-employee dispute, particularly at the domestic enquiry stage, this Court should be extremely careful and cautious in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, there is absolutely no scope for this Court for exercising its discretionary jurisdiction as of now. I am of the view that the writ petition is misconceived. It is accordingly rejected. --- *** --- .