- (1.) This order will dispose of three writ petitions No. 12835, 12830 and 12909 of 1991 as similar questions of law and fact arise in them. Counsel for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 12830 of 1991 stated that even though the prayer made in this petition was different from that made in the other two petitions, yet this petition could be disposed of with those petitions. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 12835 of 1991.
(2.) Haryana Dairy Development Corporation Limited (for short the Corporation) which is the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 2 is a Government Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was carrying on the dairy development activities in the State of Haryana. Sometime in early 1977 the State Government decided to bring the dairy development activities in the co-operative sector and therefore, the Haryana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Federation) was incorporated as an apex co- operative Society on 1.4.1977 under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 which now stands repealed by the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and the Federation is deemed to have been incorporated under the later Act. The Federation was established to promote the economic interests of the milk producers in the State and all the dairy activities undertaken by the Corporation alongwith its assets and staff were transferred to the Federation. It may be mentioned that the employees of the Corporation were transferred on deputation on the same terms and conditions on which they had been employed by the Corporation but without payment of any deputation allowance by the Federation. Most of the petitioners are those who were the employees of the Corporation and were transferred on deputation to the Federation, whereas some of them were employed by the Federation itself. It is common case of the parties that the petitioners had been serving the Federation from the year 1977 till December, 1983. Sometime in the year 1983 a scheme known as operation Flood-II was launched and the work of procurement of milk and technical input activities was transferred to the District Co-operative milk producers Unions (referred to hereinafter as 'milk unions') ten of which were established for the entire State of Haryana for different areas. These milk unions were registered as independent Co-operative Societies having their own Board of Directors to look after their affairs with separate share capital and they were independent financially though the Federation had some administrative control over them in asmuch as their Chief Executive Officers and Accounts Executives were appointed by the Federation. Since the procurement and technical input activities had been transferred to the milk unions, most of the staff of different categories in the Federation which was engaged in such activities earlier became surplus and it was decided that the milk unions shall not make any recruitment of the staff without obtaining prior permission and/or 'Non-availability Certificate' from the Federation. On the other hand, the milk unions required the necessary staff to am the activities which had been transferred to them and the same was provided to them by the Federation. The Federation decided to send its surplus staff to the milk unions either on notional deputation and/or by transferring its employees under Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be referred to hereinafter as the Act). The Federation also decided that as and when any post in the milk unions fell vacant, it was required to be filled up by sending a requisition to the Federation which on receipt of such demand would provide a suitable candidate. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners were transferred to the milk unions as Mahendergarh and Bhiwani under Section 25-FF of the Act. The decision to transfer the petitioners to the milk unions was taken on 19.12.1983 and the terms and conditions of their transfer under Section 25-FF of the Act were as under:- - 1. The services of the employees would not be interrupted by the transfer, the emoluments/benefits which they are enjoying would be protected, and 2. The terms and conditions of service applicable to the employees after the transfer would not be in any way less favourable to them immediately before the transfer and these would be protected, and 3. The Milk Union would be liable to pay to the workmen, in the event of retrenchment, compensation on the basis that their services have been continuous and have not been interrupted by this transfer. 4. The category wise inter-se-seniority of the staff transferred to the Milk Unions shall be maintained in the Union." Since the petitioners before their transfer were working with the Federation in the field, they were required to join that milk union which had been established for the area where they were already at work. All the petitioners submitted their joining reports on the same day when they were transferred. The petitioners while joining the milk unions after being transferred made a representation to the Federation through their union against their wholesale transfers whereby they became the employees of the milk unions. The representatives of the workers' union met the management of the Federation and expressed their apprehension in regard to the protection of their terms and conditions of service with the milk unions. It appears that the matter was considered by the Federation and a clarification was issued on March 5, 1984 giving some assurances to the employees who had been absorbed in the milk unions. Relevant part of the letter dated March 5, 1984 issued by the Managing Director of the Federation to all the Chief Executive Officers of the milk unions may be noticed here: "You are well aware that staff of the Haryana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation is to be absorbed in the District Co-operative Milk Producers Union by way of issuing fresh appointment letters and some of the staff was transferred for absorption under Section 25-FF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, inter-alia terms and conditions of transfer of staff to the Milk Union were communicated. Workers Union have met the Management and raised some doubt in regard to protection of terms and conditions of service. The matter has been considered at length and is clarified as under: 1. District Milk Unions shall not put up any matter in the meeting of their BOD connected with the retrenchment of staff on the basis of present work-load and for want of funds henceforth. 2. No milk union shall made any retrenchment of staff absorbed in the Union at Union level but retrenchment, if any, to be made at any stage, shall be at state level. 3. Though the inter-se-seniority shall be maintained at Milk Union level. However, for the purpose of promotion etc. the joint seniority of all category of employees would be maintained at Head Office of the Federation and as and when any post in higher cadre is to be filled on the basis of promotion it would be from amongst the employees as per seniority list maintained at H.Q. of HDDCF. 4. As and when any recruitment is to be made in the Union guidelines issued vide this office letter No. HDDCF/Admn-II/OF- II/5/83/84/11752 dated 27.12.83 will be strictly adhered to. Similarly as and when any higher post falls vacant in a Union to be filled by promotion, reference shall be made to the HDDCF for providing suitable incumbent. 5. If employee of the Haryana Dairy Development Co-op. Federation absorbed in the Union leave the service of Union and Union is to discharge the liability on account of gratuity etc. but their financial position do not permit for immediate discharge of the liability in that event a reference shall be made to the Haryana Dairy Development Co- operative Federation for making available the necessary funds to discharge that liability. The above clarifications may be kept in view while deciding the cases of the employees of the Haryana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation absorbed in the Milk-Union." Having been given the aforesaid assurances/clarifications the employees of the Federation including the petitioners accepted their transfers and continued working with the Milk unions till August, 1991. To complete the sequence of events, it is necessary to mention that the Board of Directors of the Federation in their meeting held on September 30, 1988 withdrew the clarificaricns/assurances given to the employees including the petitioners as per latter dated March 4, 1984 referred to above and this decision to withdraw the earlier letter was endorsed to the Chief Executive Officers of the milk unions on December 6, 1988 (Annexure P8 with the writ petition). The petitioners in this set of writ petitions had been absorbed by the Bhiwani District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Bhiwani and the Mahendergarh District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Mahendergarh. Both these unions were ordered to be wound up in August, 1991 by the Managing Director of the Federation exercising the powers of the Registrar, Co- operative Societies under Section 105 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. Obviously, these two unions having gone into liquidation the services of their employees like the petitioners were suddenly put to an end by a general order through a public notice a copy of which is Annexure P20 with the writ petition. It was at this stage that the present petitions were filed by the petitioners challenging their order of termination on various grounds claiming that they were the employees of the federation and that since their juniors who were absorbed in other unions of were working in the head office of the Federation were still in employment. Article 16 of the Constitution stood violated.
(3.) The Federation in reply has controverted the allegations of the petitioners and the main plank of their defence is that the petitioners were the employees of the aforesaid two milk unions which were separate legal entities and the liability, if any, to pay the compensation at the time of their discharge was that of the unions and that the Federation could not be held responsible. It is further submitted that the unions having been would up, the services of the petitioners had to be terminated and, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. It is also pleaded that the petitioners could not challenge the decision of the Federation dated September 30, 1988 withdrawing its earlier letter of March 5, 1984 after a lapse of three years and that no specific challenge has been made to this decision in the writ petition. It was contended that the petitioners had not even challenged the decision of the Federation dated December 19, 1983 (Annexure P5 with the writ petition) whereby their services stood transferred to the milk unions under Section 25 FF of the Act.;