CHARANJIT SINGH, MANAGER Vs. THE REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1568,9679,9680,7670, 16909 and 15254 of 1989 and 731, 1261 and 2169 of 1990, as the petitioners in all these petitions are Managers/Accountants/Salesmen, of the same Society and common questions of law and facts are involved in all of them. For the purpose of order, facts have been taken from CWP No. 1568 of 1989.

(2.) The petitioner is seeking direction to the Punjab State Supply and Marketing Cooperative Federation, Chandigarh, respondent No.2, to take and absorb him in service.

(3.) In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Manager of the Bassi Pathana, Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society, Limited Bassi Pathana (hereinafter referred to as the Society) by the Managing Committee in the year 1977, as the Managing Committee was competent to make appointments of its employees under bye-laws 36 (xix). The society continued working according to its bye-laws right from its inception till 1979. In the year 1978, the State of Punjab decided to take over the work relating to storage of procured wheat and storage and distribution of fertilizer in 31 identified marketing societies and the procurement was to be made by the respondent-Federation. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies wrote letter to this effect in the month of March, 1978, copy Annexure P-1. In the year 1979, the respondent-Federation modified its earlier Scheme, contained in Annexure P-1, vide its new instructions issued on 1.6.1979. In the modified scheme, all the Marketing Societies throughout the State of Punjab were taken by respondent-Federation instead of 31 earlier identified Marketing Societies. Again in view of the modified scheme, the respondent-Federation in the month of June/August, 1979 sought information regarding the salesman etc. working in the Marketing Societies. The requisite information regarding the staff strength was provided to the District Manager, the Punjab State Supply and Marketing Cooperative Federation Ltd. Patiala. The petitioner's case further is that though information regarding the staff strength was provided within the stipulated period to the respondent-Federation the petitioner as well as other members of the staff were not taken in the service of the respondent- Federation although its entire business was taken by the Federation.