RAJINDER KUMAR KANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein were appointed on different posts in the Ladwa Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. Ladwa (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). By a resolution dated November 10, 1986, the society found that it had no work and a salary of approximately Rs. 35,000/- was being paid to various employees. Accordingly, it decided to abolish five posts and terminate the services of the incumbents thereof. Initially, there was a note of dissent recorded by the representative of the Government. However, in accordance with the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, the Government affirmed the resolution of the Society vide its order dated Dec. 29,1987, Aggrieved by the resolution* passed by the Society and its affirmation by the Government, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a two-fold contention. He submits that the petitioners have a right to be heard by the Society before is could resolve to abolish certain posts. This right of hearing is sought to be claimed, even at the consideration of the matter by the Government. It is further submitted that after the filing of this writ petition, the Society had in fact appointed one Shri Sandeep Kumar, whose father was working as an Assistant Manager. It was on the death of Shri Hari Krishan that his son Sh. Sandeep Kumar was offered the appointment as a Salesman. On this premises, it is contended that the petitioners had a better right than Shri Sandeep Kumar to be appointed. My attention has also been drawn to an interim order passed by G.C. Mittal, J. (as His Lordship then was) m January 9,1989 in C.W.P. No. 14603'of 1988. By this order, it was held that the petitioners had a better right than Shri Sandeep Kumar, the son of a deceased employee, to be appointed to the post of Salesman. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The employer has a right to determine the number of posts that it requires. If on consideration of various relevant factors, like finances, quantum of work and efficiency in the office, the employer finds that certain posts are surplus and deserves to be abolished, its action cannot be normally interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is only when the order is found to be arbitrary and passed on wholly extraneous considerations, that the Court can interfere. Nothing of the sort has been pointed out in the present case. Learned counsel, however, contends that the petitioners have a right to be heard. I do not find any principle of law on which it may be held what the employer has to hear the employees before it can decide about the number of posts or persons that it requires. It is exclusive power of the employer and the employees have no right of hearing in the matter. Accordingly the contention raised by the learned counsel is rejected.