B.D.Agrawal, D.S.Sinha, JJ. - (1.) THE petitioner was employed by Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Morna, District Muzaffarnagar, which is a Co -operative Society registered under the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act, 1965, on January 1, 1985, as Mill House Fitter -II in the grade of Rs. 356 -421 per mensem. The services of the petitioner, in addition to 33 other workmen, were terminated on 24th September, 1985, after show cause notice in consequence to certain violent altercation which took place in the mill premises on 23rd August, 1985. The petitioner applied on 4th January, 1986, seeking rescission of the order of termination and promised good behavior in future, whereupon he was reinstated on the same date. On 1st July, 1986, the General Manager (D.C. Shukla) approached the U.P. Co -operative Sugar Factories Federation Limited (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Federation') and sought transfer of the petitioner on disciplinary grounds. The Joint Managing Director, Federation, passed the impugned order dated 3rd July 1986, transferring the petitioner to the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Pooranpur, district Pilibhit, and relieved him of the charge on 5th July, 1986. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We have heard Sri Shyam Narain, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Malviya, appearing on the respondents' side. Affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel on both side we proceed to decide the petition finally at this stage.
(2.) DISPUTE does not exist in regard to certain material facts in this case. The Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, which employed the petitioner, as well as the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, to which the petitioner is transferred, are both co -operative societies registered under the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act, 1965. The Federation is an apex society as specified in Section 2(a -4)(7) of the Act. Both the co -operative societies are affiliated to the Federation. Section 123(1) empowers the State Government to constitute or recognise Co -operative Federal Authority for the supervision of co -operative societies. The State Government has set up the Federation in exercise of the powers conferred under this provision and by notification dated 16th February 1976, Government has given recognition to the Federation as a Co -operative Federal Authority to supervise Cooperative Sugar Mills. The Federation, it is not in dispute, is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (vide Parmeshwar Dayal Shukla v. Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies, U.P., 1982 Lab. I.C. 1712 (D.B.). Under Section 122(1) read with Rule 319A of the U.P. Co -operative Societies Rules, 1968, the State Government has also constituted the Co -operative Institutional Service Board (for short 'the Board') for the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of co -operative societies. The Board has framed the U.P. Co -operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, with the approval of the State Government as contemplated under sub -section (2) of Section 122. These Regulations, however, have no application in so far as the employees of the Co -operative Sugar Mills are concerned for the reason, which, too, is not disputed before us that by notification dated 7th February, 1973, the State Government has expressly excluded the Federation from the purview of the Board and by another notification dated 6th August, 1977, the State Government has excluded the Co -operative Cane Sugar Factories also from the purview of the Board. The crux of the dispute is whether the power to transfer a workman employed by a particular co -operative sugar mills to another co -operative sugar mills vests in the Federation. The order dated 3rd July, 1986, made by the Joint Managing Director, Federation, in the instant case, does not specify the source of power or authority, but this would be of little consequence provided it can be made out otherwise that the authority or the power exists. In the two counter affidavits, filed on behalf of the Federation, the sources of power, relied upon in this connection, are two fold: - (i) Bye -law 5(b) of the Federation; (ii) Notification of the State Government under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 15th July 1982, read with the terms of appointment of the petitioner dated 1st January, 1985.
(3.) SRI Malviya, learned counsel for the respondents invited a reference also to the bye -laws framed by the Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited like other sugar cane factories placed in the co -operative sector Bye -law 7/7 -B provide that the recruitment of the employees shall be on the staffing pattern adopted by the Federation. Bye -law 66(ta) says that the Secretary shall have among his powers and duties the appointment of the workmen and the ministerial staff. We could not be referred to any provision in these bye -laws pertaining to the transfer of a workman employed in the sugar mill concerned to another co -operative sugar unit. It is undisputed more over that the petitioner is not covered under the centralised services created in pursuance of the provision made in Section 122A of the Act.;