- (1.) All the three writ petitions are at the instance of the workmen in the Milk Union at Bhiwani (hereinafter called, 'the Milk Union'), who had been relieved from their respective duties when the union at Bhiwani was wound up under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act. The challenge was brought at the instance of the respective petitioners in their writ petitions complaining (i) that they were all employed originally by the Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited and their seniority positions were to be assigned from the respective duties of their entry in the federation. The retrenchment from the Milk Union could have been carried out only by applying the principle of 'last come, first go' and the respective petitioners could not have been terminated from the service from the Milk Union when their juniors continued in other Milk Unions; (ii) there had been a dialogue between the Milk Union employees and the federation through its Management about the conditions of service of several of the workers, who had been transferred to different Milk Unions controlled by the Cooperative federation and any retrenchment, if it were to take place at the Milk Union, it would be made only at the State level and not at the level of the Milk Union and consequently, retrenchment could not have been made by any orders of the Milk Union even when particular Milk Union was closed or wound up; and (iii) there had been a gross discrimination practised in allowing for employees of certain of the Milk Unions to be served with orders of termination though their service conditions compelled them to join any Milk Union under the control of the federation and there was no manner that they could object to such transfers. Any circumstance that culminated in winding up of the Milk Union could not result in loss of service to persons who were transferred to such Milk Unions that closed, while employees of other Milk Unions who are even juniors to the respective employees in the Milk Unions continued in service that had not closed.
(2.) The petitioners' case was rested on the conditions of service of the federation at the time when appointment orders were issued which directed under clause 4 that an employee under the Milk Union was liable to serve in any place in the State of Haryana or outside, as may be required by the federation. Clause 7 specified that the services will be liable to be transferred to any other entity connected directly or indirectly with federation including the Milk Unions. The reference to this condition was in the context of the Haryana Dairy Cooperative's Staff Service Rules, 1988 that provided, inter alia, under clause 36.4 as follows:- "In case of retrenchment as contained in rule 36.3 above, the employee who was the last person to be employed in that category, shall be the first to be retrenched or reverted provided in case of employees appointed on adhoc basis, the first person to be employed in that category shall be the first to be retrenched or reverted. The federation or a Union as the case may be, may however, request the Government to absorb the retrenched employes in Govt. or other institutional jobs." The petitioners would refer to the fact that the absorption of staff of the federation in the Milk Union had been a subject of contention between the employees in various Milk Unions when they were all purported to be transferred by invoking Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is an admitted case that all the petitioners had been served with notices of transfers under Section 25-FF of the ID Act and they had joined in the respective unions and submitted themselves as employees of the respective unions. However, the subject of absorption in the federation was brought up and considered through the proceedings issued by the Chief Administrative Officer acting on behalf of the Managing Director when the workers had raised some apprehensions about the terms and conditions of service in the respective Milk Unions. It was at that meeting that it was decided that no Milk Union shall make any retrenchment of staff absorbed in the union at local level but that it should be done only at the State level. The deliberations further yielded to a concession that inter se seniority would be maintained at the Union level but for the purpose of promotion, the joint seniority of all categories of employees would be maintained at the head office of the federation.
(3.) The grievance of the petitioner in CWP No.12830 of 1991 is that a joint seniority list had indeed been issued and he had been placed at serial No.18 in the seniority list issued on 31.12.1988 and he had come by transfers to various Milk Unions and at the relevant time in 1991 when he was working as a Junior Auditor at Rohtak, he was purported to be repatriated to the alleged parent Milk Union at Bhiwani and relieved from his duties. The cause of action for the writ petitioner in CWP No.12830 of 1991 was an order issued by the office of the Liquidator of the Milk Union at Bhiwani when the union was wound up and the employees had been issued with notices of termination.;