RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of three writ petitions No. 12835, 12830 and 12909 of 1991 as similar questions of law and fact arise in them. Counsel for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 12830 of 1991 stated that even though the prayer made in this petition was different from that made in the other two petitions, yet this petition could be disposed of with those petitions. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 12835 of 1991.

(2.) Haryana Dairy Development Corporation Limited (for short the Corporation) which is the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 2 is a Government Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was carrying on the dairy development activities in the State of Haryana. Sometime in early 1977 the State Government decided to bring the dairy development activities in the co-operative sector and therefore, the Haryana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Federation) was incorporated as an apex co- operative Society on 1.4.1977 under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 which now stands repealed by the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and the Federation is deemed to have been incorporated under the later Act. The Federation was established to promote the economic interests of the milk producers in the State and all the dairy activities undertaken by the Corporation alongwith its assets and staff were transferred to the Federation. It may be mentioned that the employees of the Corporation were transferred on deputation on the same terms and conditions on which they had been employed by the Corporation but without payment of any deputation allowance by the Federation. Most of the petitioners are those who were the employees of the Corporation and were transferred on deputation to the Federation, whereas some of them were employed by the Federation itself. It is common case of the parties that the petitioners had been serving the Federation from the year 1977 till December, 1983. Sometime in the year 1983 a scheme known as operation Flood-II was launched and the work of procurement of milk and technical input activities was transferred to the District Co-operative milk producers Unions (referred to hereinafter as 'milk unions') ten of which were established for the entire State of Haryana for different areas. These milk unions were registered as independent Co-operative Societies having their own Board of Directors to look after their affairs with separate share capital and they were independent financially though the Federation had some administrative control over them in asmuch as their Chief Executive Officers and Accounts Executives were appointed by the Federation. Since the procurement and technical input activities had been transferred to the milk unions, most of the staff of different categories in the Federation which was engaged in such activities earlier became surplus and it was decided that the milk unions shall not make any recruitment of the staff without obtaining prior permission and/or 'Non-availability Certificate' from the Federation. On the other hand, the milk unions required the necessary staff to am the activities which had been transferred to them and the same was provided to them by the Federation. The Federation decided to send its surplus staff to the milk unions either on notional deputation and/or by transferring its employees under Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be referred to hereinafter as the Act). The Federation also decided that as and when any post in the milk unions fell vacant, it was required to be filled up by sending a requisition to the Federation which on receipt of such demand would provide a suitable candidate. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners were transferred to the milk unions as Mahendergarh and Bhiwani under Section 25-FF of the Act. The decision to transfer the petitioners to the milk unions was taken on 19.12.1983 and the terms and conditions of their transfer under Section 25-FF of the Act were as under:-

(3.) The Federation in reply has controverted the allegations of the petitioners and the main plank of their defence is that the petitioners were the employees of the aforesaid two milk unions which were separate legal entities and the liability, if any, to pay the compensation at the time of their discharge was that of the unions and that the Federation could not be held responsible. It is further submitted that the unions having been would up, the services of the petitioners had to be terminated and, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. It is also pleaded that the petitioners could not challenge the decision of the Federation dated September 30, 1988 withdrawing its earlier letter of March 5, 1984 after a lapse of three years and that no specific challenge has been made to this decision in the writ petition. It was contended that the petitioners had not even challenged the decision of the Federation dated December 19, 1983 (Annexure P5 with the writ petition) whereby their services stood transferred to the milk unions under Section 25 FF of the Act.