ANAND BALLABH GUNWANT Vs. PROVICIAL CO OP UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the principal issue arising therein is identical. The question which arises for consideration is and upon which the fate of these petitions depends is whether the petitioners had been duly absorbed in the service of the U. P. Co-operative Union Ltd., Lucknow recognised as Co-operative Federal authority Under Section 124 (1) of the U P Co-operaitive Societies Act.

(2.) The essential facts may be summarised thus : The petitioners were appointed as Co-operative Supervisors in the Provincial Co-operative Union in or about the year 1960 and were posted in different districts. In the year 1969, the petitioners' services were placed at the disposal of the District Co-operative Bank, Meerut. This position costinued until February 1976 when the U. P. Co-operative Union Ltd., was recognised as Co-operative Federal Authority (the Federal Authority hereafter for short) under Section 124 (1) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act vide a notification issued in that behalf on 13-2-1076. The Federal Authority was under the aforesaid Act authorised to recruit, train, appoint Co-operative Supervisors, Accountants and Godown keepers of the Co-operative Societies which were put under the control and supervision of the Federal Authority. For this purpose the Federal Authority was authorised to frame Regulations. It accordingly framed Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976 The Regulations were ivided in two parts "A and B". Part - A related to the working Regulations and Part 6 related to matters relating to service conditions of the employees of the Federal Authority. Clause 4 of the working Regulations lays down the procedure for absorption inter alia of the Co-operative Supervisors of the Co-operative Societies falling within the purview of the Federal Authority. Regulation 4 (2) (a) provides that all supervisors who at any time held a lien with the Provincial Co-operative Union and whose lien was subsequently terminated on account of transfer of their services to a District / Central Co-operative Banks may exercise option of coming back under the control of the Federal Authority before 30-6-1976. Such supervisors were required to indicate their option on Form, and submit it to the Chairman, Disttict Committee / District Asstt. Registrar who was required to forward it to the competent authority namely, the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee was required under these Regulations to make its recommendation to the Committee of Management of the Federal Authority. Under Clause (c) of Regulation 4 (2) the decision of the Committee of Management of the Authority is final If the Federal Authority decides to accept such option, the supervisors stand absorbed in the srevice of the Federal Authority.

(3.) It will thus be seen that absorption of the petitioners as Supervisors in the Provincial Co-operative Union as a Federal Authority depended, firstly, on the exercise of the option by them and, sec ondly, on the approval of that option by the Committee of Management of the Federal Authority. The dispute between the parties arises from this point. The case of the petitioners is that they had duly exercised their option on Form-A within the prescribed period and that that option had also been accepted by the Federat Authority. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the petitioners had not been approved for absorption by the Federal Authority and consequently the impugned orders of termination of the service of the petitioners passel by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Sbcieties, U. P. acting as Chairman of Regional Committee of Co-operative Federal Authority were perfectly valid in law.