V RAVICHANDRAN Vs. DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as casual labour on 18.5.92 in the third respondent society namely, the Government Telecommunication Employees' Cooperative Society Limited. His services were regularised with effect from 6.1.96 as Peon. Factually, the name of the petitioner was not sponsored through employment exchange and he was recruited directly by the third responde The petitioner was appointed as casual labour on 18.5.92 in the third respondent society namely, the Government Telecommunication Employees' Cooperative Society Limited. His services nt society. He was served with a memo dated 9.9.96 by the third respondent to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated, as directed by the first respondent namely, the Director of Employment and Training in his letter dated 17.6.96, since the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to G.O.Ms.No.1138 Labour and Employment Department dated 25.9.78. Questioning the letter dated 17.6.96 and the Government order dated 25.9.78, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the third respondent society is a society registered under the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. The competent authority to issue direction would be the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 47 of the said Act. Issuance of memo by calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he was appointed without reference to the employment exchange by placing the Government Order is totally outside the jurisdiction of either the first respondent or the State Government. He would also submit that in any case, the provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 are not applicable to the appointment of unskilled worker. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that both the impugned letter and the Government Order are liable to be set aside.

(3.) The submission of Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent society is almost identical with the submission of Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioner insofar as the applicability of the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 only to the service conditions of the petitioner. He would also produce the special bye-laws and contend that the only authority competent to interfere in the service conditions of the petitioner would be the Central Registrar. By the fact that the society is registered under the Central Act, the State has no role to issue directions, muchless directing action against the petitioner as his appointment was made contrary to the impugned Government Order dated 25.9.78.