JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Both items being connected, as they relate to the affairs of the same body, we are disposing of the same by a common judgment. 2. The prayer in Writ Petition (MS) No. 1735 of 2016, from which Special Appeal No. 194 of 2016 arises, is as follows:- “Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner Union dated 02.05.2016 & 16-06-2016 respectively. 3. These are the facts stated in Writ Petition (MS) No. 1735 of 2016, from which Special Appeal No. 194 of 2016 arises:- The petitioner Union entered into an agreement with the second respondent on 04.04.2013 with regard to increment of salary and other issues for a period of three years. Petitioner relies on Clause 19 of the Agreement. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner Union preferred a notice to the 1st respondent, who is the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rishikesh alleging the non-compliance of the Agreement. Subsequently, the complaint is that no action was taken on the Application dated 07.04.2016 by the first respondent and the second respondent did not appear. Then, an Application was preferred dated 02.05.2016 to the second respondent alleging inaction. Reminder was sent, it is stated by Annexure-5. Annexure-6 is the order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the 1st respondent fixing the next date as 16.06.2016 for appearance. Again on 16.06.2016 also, the second respondent, it is alleged, did not appear. Then, Annexure-7 dated 16.06.2016 was sent to the first respondent alleging harassment, and also it contains Application seeking VRS. According to the writ petitioner, Rule 4 is applicable during conciliation and termination of service of the employees during conciliation is against law. There is reference to Section 6F of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is, thereafter, alleged that Section 6E of the Act has to be complied with and the condition of service will remain unchanged. Acting on the said basis that, according to the petitioner, the Union sought direction to the respondents to decide the Applications of the petitioner Union dated 02.05.2016 & 16-06-2016. The learned Single Judge disposed of the same by directing as follows:- “The innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is worth accepting. Acting on the said basis that, according to the petitioner, the Union sought direction to the respondents to decide the Applications of the petitioner Union dated 02.05.2016 & 16-06-2016. The learned Single Judge disposed of the same by directing as follows:- “The innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is worth accepting. Writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the aforesaid applications of the petitioner Union dated 02.05.2016 & 16.06.2016 by a reasoned and speaking order, at an earliest possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order.” 4. It is against the same that the Appeal is carried by respondent nos. 2 & 3, namely, M/s Power Technologies Corporation and the Director of the said Corporation. The very same petitioner in the writ petition has filed the other writ petition (Writ Petition (Crl) No. 838 of 2016), essentially on the same allegation, but therein the allegation is that there is threat from respondent nos. 2 & 3, who are the appellants before us. Virtually, on the same facts, it is alleged that after the certified copy of the order was received in the other writ petition (WPMS No. 1735 of 2016), respondent nos. 4 & 5, who are the appellants before us, in the other case are harassing and threatening the petitioner Union, and it is also alleged that respondent no. 4 has started taking work from the placement agency/contractor, instead of Union and, therefore, they observe strike in respondent no. 4’s premises, which is in violation of the Constitution. Therefore, protection is also sought by the petitioner Union. 5. Today, when the matter came up, we heard Sri Anil Dabral, learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner Union, Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants in Special Appeal No. 194 of 2016, who also appears on behalf of respondent nos. 4 & 5 in the writ petition and Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel on behalf of the first respondent in Special Appeal No. 194 of 2016, besides Sri D.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3 in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 838 of 2016. 6. 4 & 5 in the writ petition and Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel on behalf of the first respondent in Special Appeal No. 194 of 2016, besides Sri D.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3 in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 838 of 2016. 6. It is the case of Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel who appears for the appellants, that the learned Single Judge has issued a mandamus against the word “Authorities” and directed the “company” to take a decision on the Applications seeking VRS. It is his case that it is not even a company; it is a partnership firm and the writ petition itself was not maintainable as against it. Secondly, the case set up is that there were thirty employees in the appellant company; six have been retrenched. In regard to non-observance of the Agreement and non-appearance by the appellants before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, it is their case that they had appeared and they will continue to appear, but he would submit that the appellants do not have the policy of VRS, and what the petitioner Union has sought and got from the learned Single Judge, is a direction to that firm to take a decision on the Applications for VRS and a direction on the Applications before the first respondent to give a direction to that firm to give VRS; both are not maintainable, is their contention. He would, however, submit that the Application dated 07.04.2016 is pending consideration before the first respondent, in regard to which, appearance was being put in. He would also submit that the powers of the first respondent are limited to that of conciliating in the matter and if there is failure in the matter, further procedure, as contemplated in the Act, has to be followed. 7. In regard to the apprehension of threat to the petitioner Union in the writ petition seeking police protection, he would contend that if the members of the petitioner Union do agitation without causing any hindrance to egress and ingress or without causing any harm to the property of the company, there will be no threat to the petitioner Union from respondent nos. 4 & 5 in the said writ petition. 8. 4 & 5 in the said writ petition. 8. Sri Anil Dabral, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would, in fact, submit that the Applications were filed finding that there is no result forthcoming in the Application dated 07.04.2016 and being frustrated with non-cooperation, they sought the benefit of VRS. 9. We would think that the direction of the learned Single Judge to the appellants, in the first place, appears to be without appreciating the scope of the writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus, undoubtedly, is a writ of widest amplitude. The principle of law is that the Court must not be astute to find out reasons, why it should be denied and must apply it as a writ, which is capable of producing justice. Technicalities will not shackle the jurisdiction of the Court and the existence of an alternative remedy is also no bar in the matter of writ of mandamus. However, the condition precedent for issuance of a writ of mandamus is that there must be a public duty with the respondent and a legal right with the petitioner. In other words, there must be a legal right with the petitioner with the corresponding duty with the answering respondent and it is observed in its breach or there is delay. In such circumstances, it will be open to a person to file a writ seeking mandamus. A writ of mandamus is available against a private body also, provided there is a public duty cast on the private party, be it under a statute or even contract or custom. See in this regard Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others vs. V.R. Rudani and others reported in (1989) 2 SCC 691 , where the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:- “22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states:- “To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract.” We share this view. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states:- “To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract.” We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wife remedy which must be easily available ‘to reach injustice wherever it is found’. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition.” 10. But here, the writ is issued to the appellants asking them to decide on the issues relating to VRS when it is the case of the appellants that it is a firm and no statutory duty is cast upon it to give the benefit of VRS. There is no case even for the writ petitioner Union that there is any duty cast upon the appellants by way of a custom or contract. Therefore, we would think that particularly, when the learned Single Judge had not issued notice to the appellants, issuing such a direction was not called for. The said portion of the judgment must be vacated and we do so. No doubt, there is a case for the writ petitioner that a copy of the said representation was forwarded to the first respondent. The direction to the first respondent to decide the Application dated 16.06.2016 also appears to relate to the issue of VRS. The case of the writ petitioner is that the substance of their grievance is that there is violation of the Agreement dated 04.04.2013. In regard to the same, actually the petitioner has already moved an Application dated 07.04.2016 before the first respondent. We would think that in regard to the Appeal, an order has to be passed recording the submission of the appellants that they will appear and cooperate with the proceedings before the first respondent in regard to the Application dated 07.04.2016 and also recording the submission of Sri N.S. Pundir, who appears on behalf of respondent no. We would think that in regard to the Appeal, an order has to be passed recording the submission of the appellants that they will appear and cooperate with the proceedings before the first respondent in regard to the Application dated 07.04.2016 and also recording the submission of Sri N.S. Pundir, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 1, that a decision will be taken in the matter as per law within a period of three weeks from 18.07.2016. 11. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed and in place of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we record the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants will appear before the first respondent on 18.07.2016, which is the next date and then, the first respondent will take up the issue projected in the Application dated 07.04.2016, and after hearing the parties, he will take a decision within a period of three weeks from 18.07.2016, in accordance with law, which appears to be the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules made thereunder. 12. In regard to the writ petition seeking police protection, we record the submission of the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5, who are the appellants in Special Appeal No. 194 of 2016, that they will not cause any threat to the members of the petitioner Union, if they agitate without causing any hindrance to egress and ingress to the premises of the Establishment and without causing any threat to the property of the Establishment. 13. Writ Petition (Crl) No. 838 of 2016 also stands disposed of.