D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) By an order dated November 11, 1992 the petitioner's service was dispensed with after holding an enquiry against him on the alleged misconduct levelled through a charge-sheet. The petitioner had preferred an appeal as provided in the relevant standing orders which also stood dismissed. The appeal was preferred pursuant to leave granted by this Court and after the appeal was dismissed, by way of amendment, then said order dated June 27, 1996 has also been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. A.K. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents, had raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition against a cooperative society when the petitioner was not governed by any statutory rules framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act governing service conditions of the petitioner.
(3.) Mr. Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his opposition to the preliminary objection had contended that even though the petitioner was not governed by statutory rules governing his service conditions, yet the cooperative society being saddled with statutory obligations as provided in Section 19 of the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962 read with rule 15 of the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1963, a writ petition is maintainable against co-operative society. In order to support his contention, Mr. Ashok Bhushan had pointed out that the petitioner is a field worker and is not connected with manufacturing process and his duties were outside the factory premises, and therefore he was not covered by the Standing Orders of the society governing service conditions of its employees. He had next contended that since the order passed by the appellate authority has been challenged in this writ petition, therefore, the appellate authority being a statutory authority and a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, writ petition would be maintainable. He next contends that on the very face of the order of suspension, it appears that the charges which were levelled against the petitioner, were related to the Engineering department, with which the petitioner was not concerned and that the other charges were absolutely vague and on the face of it, the basis of termination being perverse, this Court should interfere in the present case. He had also relied on a few decisions in support of his contentions, which will be dealt with at appropriate stage. He had also relied on various sections of the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and the Rules framed thereunder as well as U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and Factories Act respectively. He had also relied on supplementary affidavit seeking to incorporate necessary pleading to support his contention.;