1997 Supreme(SC) 1563
1997(10) Supreme 222
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Sujata V. Manohar & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. -Appellants
versus
Shri Ram Singh Yadav & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3052 of 1992
Decided on 1-12-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Rachna Shrivastava, Ms. Richi Goyal, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, J.A. Warsi, Shahid Hussain, Advocates.
Headnote:U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975-Regulations 17, 18, 84, 85-Order terminating services on ground that employee abandoned his services-Validity challenged-Respondent was employed as Helper-He was transferred from one office to another of the appellant-He did not join new posting-His not joining the posting not based on any of his legal rights under the Regulations-Impugned order of termination is in fact removal of respondent from the service-Non compliance of provisions of Regulations 84 and 85-Order of High Court setting aside termination of service of respondent is legally sustainable-It does not preclude the appellant from holding an enquiry or passing proper order in accordance with law-Respondent has not worked from July, 1977 till impugned judgment dated 3.7.1989 of the High Court-He will not be entitled to any pay and allowances for that period-This period shall be counted towards his pensionary and other benefits. (Para 11)
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 3, 1989 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) allowing the writ petition of the respondent. The respondent who was an employee with the appellant challenged the order dated May 25, 1978 of the Joint Managing Director of the appellant terminating his services on the ground that he abandoned his services from July 21, 1977 and that the respondent would not be entitled to any pay and allowances. The order terminating the services of the respondent, however, says that "as such he is absent since 21 July, 1977, and his services are terminated for the reason of being absconded in this way". By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the order dated May 25, 1978 on the ground that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and his services could not have been terminated without there being an enquiry officer appointed and no enquiry ever having been conducted against the appellant on the alleged ground of his abandoning his job.
2. The appellant is a co-operative society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short the Act ). It is, therefore, governed by the provisions of that Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 122 of the Act prescribes constitution of an Authority to control employees of co-operative societies. This Section we may reproduce as under :
"122. Authority to control employees of co-operative societies.- (1) The State Government may constitute an authority or authorities, in such manner as may be prescribed, for the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of co-operative societies, or a class of co-operative societies, and may require such authority or authorities to frame Regulations regarding recruitment, emoluments, terms and conditions of service including disciplinary control of such employees and, subject to the provisions contained in Section 70, settlement of disputes between an employee of a co-operative society and the society.
(2) The Regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the approval of the State Government and shall, after such approval, be published in the Gazette, and take effect from the date of such publication and shall supersede any Regulations made under Section 121."
3. The State Government framed the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 which were published in the U.P. Gazette dated 6th January, 1976. The Regulations were applicable with effect from the date of their publication in the U.P. Gazette. Clause (xi) of Regulation 2 defines employee which means a person in whole-time service of a co-operative society, but does not include a casual worker employed on daily wages or a person in part-time service of a society. Under Regulation 5 recruitment for all appointments in a co-operative society shall be made through the Board which means the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board. The constitution and the functions of this Board may, however, be not relevant at this stage as the respondent was appointed on January 22, 1973 as a Helper, a Class IV employee, temporarily by the Secretary of the appellant, viz., prior to the coming into force of the Regulations. Under Regulation 102 a co-operative society is empowered to frame service rules for its employees which, however, are to be subject to the provisions of the Regulations. The Regulations, however, apply to the existing employees of a co-operative society which were on its roll on the date the Regulations took effect. Under Regulation 103, the Regulations shall be deemed inoperative to the extent they are inconsistent with any of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Adhiniyam, 1962, Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 and any other labour laws for the time being in force. Regulations 102 and 103 may be set out as und