LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-151

COOPERATIVE STORE LTD Vs. SUPERBAZAR KARAMCHARI HITESH

Decided On October 16, 2012
COOPERATIVE STORE LTD Appellant
V/S
SUPERBAZAR KARAMCHARI HITESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 9th October, 2012 of the learned Single Judge in so far as, while issuing notice of W.P.(C) No.6426/2012 preferred by the respondent no.1 Union, also, till the next date of hearing i.e. 22nd November, 2012, staying the 'order' dated 5th October, 2012 of the appellant no.1 impugned in the writ petition. The counsel for the respondent no.1 Union being on caveat, as well as the counsels for the respondent no.2 (Officer Liquidator, The Co-operative Store Limited) and the respondent no.3 (The Central Registrar, The Cooperative Societies) appear. Considering the nature of the order impugned and the appeal, with the consent of the counsels, the appeal was heard finally on 12th October, 2012 and the matter posted to today for orders.

(2.) The writ petition was filed, as aforesaid, impugning the 'order' dated 5th October, 2012 which is as under:-

(3.) The contention of the respondent no.1 in the writ petition is, that in the year 2004-05 Trade Unions of workers of the 'Super Bazar' filed several Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court against the closure of 'Super Bazar' and for revival thereof; that the Supreme Court, for revival, allowed several bidders and finally accepted the bid of the appellant no.2 M/s. Writers and Publishers Ltd., who though took over the management of 'Super Bazar' during the year 2009-2011 but did not take any steps for revival thereof; that in the circumstances the respondent no.3 The Central Registrar, The Co-operative Societies issued notice of last opportunity to the management to take immediate steps for revival of 'Super Bazar'; that the act of suddenly declaring the employment of more than 950 employees as having come to an end is illegal and is in violation of the right to life and livelihood of the members of the respondent no.1 Union; that the members of the respondent no.1 Union were in fact absorbed as the employees of the Society; that the 'order' dated 5 th October, 2012 violates Articles 14 & 16 and is in violation of principles of natural justice.