N.K.KAPOOR, J. - (1.) PUNJAB State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (for short "the Markfed") has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff has been accepted resulting in decreeing his suit as prayed for, on the ground that the impugned judgment and decree is illegal and hence unsustainable.
(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the resolution dated 20. 12. 1977 passed by the Board of Directors of Sugarfed-defendant No. 1 vide which post of Plant Protection Officer which the plaintiff was holding was abolished is illegal. null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff with a further prayer that the plaintiff continues to be an employee of Markfed and so entitled to all consequential benefits of pay, allowance etc. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from filling the post of Chief Cane Development Officer. Briefly put the case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed as a Plant Protection Expert vide appointment letter dated 7. 12. 1972 by the Markfed (the present appellant) pursuance to which he joined on 13:12. 1972. On 12. 6. 1973 a termination order was passed by the Establishment Officer. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff filed appeal and it is during the pendency of this appeal that by some mutual agreement between Markfed and Sugarfed the services of the plaintiff were lent to Sugarfed. As per this arrangement, the petitioner was to be posted as Plant Protection Officer in Sugarfed and the salary to be paid to the plaintiff was to be shared 50-50% by the Markfed and Sugarfed. It is pursuance to this arrangement that plaintiff joined Sugarfed on 9. 11. 1973 and served the organisation without any blemish. It is on 19/20-12-1977 when the plaintiff was on earned leave that the impugned notice dated 20. 12. 1977 was passed by the Board of Directors of the Sugarfed abolishing post of the plaintiff which resolution is being impugned in the present suit on the ground (i) that the plaintiff was on deputation with Sugarfed and so continues to be an employees of the Markfed. Thus it was not within the competence of the Board of Directors of Sugarfed to pass such a resolution; (ii) that the meeting of the Board of Directors dated 20. 12. 1977 cannot be said to be legally constituted meeting of the Board of Directors as neither the Registrar, Co-operative Societies nor Labour Commissioner were personally present; (iii) that neither the order passed in the meeting dated 20. 12. 1977 were conveyed to the plaintiff nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before passing such order which is clearly violative of principles of natural justice; and (iv) that he came to know of the same vide letter PSE/pbo/694 dated 14. 4. 1980 when payment was sent by the Sugarfed including one month salary in lieu of notice period. At no stage the plaintiff relinquished his charge and thus continues to be in the employment of the defendant. Lastly, the Sugarfed is not the appointing authority of the plaintiff and thus was not competent to relieve him.
(3.) SUGARFED - defendant No. 1 - filed written statement and took some preliminary objections. Firstly, the suit is not maintainable; secondly, the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff is challenging the resolution dated 20. 12. 1977. Thirdly, the suit in the present form is barred as per provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Fourthly, since the plaintiff claims himself to be an employee of the Markfed, no decree can be passed against defendant No. 1. On merits, it was averred that the plaintiff was appointed vide order dated 8. 11. 1973 who joined the organisation on 9. 11. 1973 and continued to hold the post upto 20. 12. 1977. It was, however, averred that the plaintiff is not concerned as regards (he internal arrangement between defendant No. 1 and 2. It was further stated that the post of Plant Protection Officer was abolished vide resolution dated 20. 12. 1977. It was denied that the plaintiff was on earned leave.;