ACHUTHA A Vs. RAMA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are placed before the Division Bench, on reference, consequent upon a preliminary objection raised by the respondent-Co-operative Society before the learned single Judge that writ would not lie against the respondent-Sugar factory which is a Co-operative Society registered under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. This contention is not tenable because, this very-Bench in W. P. No. 13524 of 1999 dated february 25, 2003 (reported in Chitradurga dist. Mazdoor Sangh v. Bhadra Sahakari sakkare Karkhane Niyamita and Ors. 2003-III-LLJ- 300 (Kant) held that Bhadra sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita which is also a Co-operative Society is a "state" within the meaning of Article 12 as well as an "authority" for the purpose of issuing writs and/or orders under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The reasons stated by us in the said judgment, equally apply to the facts of this case also to hold that the respondent-Sri Rama Sahakari Sakkare karkhane Limited is a "state" within the meaning of Article 12 and an "authority" for the purpose of issuing writs and/or orders under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, we hold that the writ petitions are maintainable against the respondent-Co-operative Society.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The petitioners were appointed as Field assistants during the period from 2/08/1982 to February 11, 1983 and worked continuously as such till 14/07/1987. It is alleged that on 14/07/1987, their services were dispensed with without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, "1947. That led to the reference of the dispute between the Trade Union representing the workmen and the management of the respondent- Society to the Labour Court by Government of Karnataka vide Reference nos. 113/1998, 155/1998, 29/1992 and 123/1988 under Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) THE Labour Court, on adjudication, passed an award dated 20/12/1995, directing the reinstatement of the workers with continuity of service with 25% of the back wages in the case of the petitioners 1, 2 and 4, whereas the back wages was awarded to the extent of 50% in the case of petitioner No. 3.