- (1.) A very interesting argument has been advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner in the present case. That writ petitioner was working as a Marketing Manager of the 1st respondent-Co-operative Society. His services, have been terminated by an order dated llth June, 1991. His termination is assailed in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel was conscious about the hurdles many of them which he had to cross, to have writ petition entertained by us.
(2.) WHETHER a co-operative society is an authority within the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is the threshold question.
(3.) IT is unnecessary to burden the judgment with decisions of various courts including those of the Apex Court, where helpful aids and guidelines have been given for resolving that controversy. Even in relation to the co-operative societies, the question has been considered by High Courts. Three decisions have taken the view that the co-operative societies are outside the pail of the 'authority' as sketched in Article 12. They are of High Courts of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, and a decision of Division Bench consisting of Ranganath Misra, C. J. and Patnaik, J. in P. Bhaskaran v. The Additional Secretary (Agril) Co-operative Department, Trivandrum, AIR 1988 Kerala 75 (FB), and in Chakradhar Patel v. Samasingha Service Society, AIR 1982 Orissa 38. Tekraj v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 469, is a decision where principles are discussed and guidance given in an exhaustive matter. A single Judge of this Court (Guttal, J.) followed the decision of the Gauhati High Court, reported in Nihar Sen Gupta v. Union Territory, 1989 Lab IC 188, and took a contrary view in Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat v. Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank, 1988 (2) LLJ page 377.;