- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 3 whereby his request for joining as Assistant Sales Inspector with respondent No. 3 was declined.
(2.) The facts :- The petitioner was offered a temporary post of Assistant Sales Inspector on June 2, 1982 by the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh (a public sector undertaking). He accepted of offer. After training, he was posted at Milk Plant, Bathinda. The Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh was replaced by the Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federations Ltd. (respondent No. 2), which is an instrumentality of the State of Punjab having been founded by the State Government and as such it is in the nature of another authority in terms of the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioner came to be marked by anti-social elements at Bathinda. So, he made a request to respondent No. 2 on May 30, 1989 for his transfer to the Milk Plant at Ludhiana under the control of Ludhiana District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Milkfed Plant, Ludhiana (respondent No. 3). in the year 1988, respondent No. 1 issued general policy instructions about the security of the members of minority community. These instructions were applicable to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Under these instructions any reasonable request from such an employee was to be considered sympathetically. The request of the petitioner was accepted by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated June 2, 1989 with an express condition that he should submit his resignation from the post of Assistant Sales Inspector in Milk Union, Bathinda and accept his seniority as Assistant Sales Inspector on the cadre of Milk Union, Ludhiana from the date of his joining the service in that Milk Union. The petitioner submitted his resignation on June 15, 1989. His resignation was accepted by the Managing Director. The Guru Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Milk Plant, Bathinda, vide order dated July 20, 1989, on the advice of respondent No. 2. The petitioner approached respondent No. 3 for absorption but was informed on August 9, 1989 that he could not be absorbed in the Milk Plant at Ludhiana. The petitioner maintains that he tendered his resignation with specific undertaking that he could be absorbed by respondent No. 3.
(3.) Separate written statements have been filed by respondents 2 and 3. Respondent No. 2 took a preliminary objection that it was not an immediate employer. The petitioner was initially the employee of Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and was posted at Milk Plant, Mohali. Milk Plant, Mohali and other plants were also taken over and the staff working there was absorbed into the service of respondent No. 2. The petitioner also stood absorbed in the service of respondent No. 2. The petitioner was transferred to Milk Plant, Ludhiana in January, 1984 by respondent No. 2. He was suspended and charge-sheeted in January, 1986 and was subsequently punished by respondent No. 2. On his reinstatement, he was posted at Milk Plant, Bathinda. Milk Plant, Bathinda belonging to respondent No. 2 was permanently transferred to the Guru Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Bathinda in January, 1988. He was initially retained on notional deputation at Milk Plant, Bathinda, but later on vide order dated June 30, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2, was permanently transferred to the service of the Guru Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Bathinda and since then the petitioner is the employee of the Milk Union, Bathinda for all intents and purposes. On merits, it was admitted that a request was received from the petitioner for transfer from Bathinda Milk Plant to Ludhiana Milk Plant. Respondent No. 2 had no objection to the transfer of the services of the petitioner on cadre strength of respondent No. 3 on permanent basis. Guru Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Bathinda, and Ludhiana District Co-operative Milk Products Union, Ludhiana are different and distinct legal entities having their independent cadres. Respondent No. 2 could not issue any direction to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 maintained that it is not a instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ is maintainable against it and that the necessary party has not been impleaded in the writ petition. Guru Co-operative Milk Producers' Union, Bathinda was a necessary part to the writ petition which had accepted the resignation of the petitioner. In all other respects, respondent No. 3 reiterated the pleas taken by respondent No. 2 in the written statement.;