Managers of Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 2(S) - WORKMEN - MANAGERS OF PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - HELD TO BE WORKMEN - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 25-F OF THE ACT - HELD TO BE ILLEGAL.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were Managers of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies (PACS) in Bharatpur District. They were holding these posts on substantive basis and were permanent employees. The Managing Director Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bharatpur passed an order under Rule 17 of Krishi Rin Datri Sahakari Samitiyonke Vyawasthapakon Ke Chayan, Niyukti Avam Sewa Niyam, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1977) compulsorily retiring the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioners were workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court further held that the termination of the services of the petitioners amounted to retrenchment and the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were bound to apply in these cases. The Court held that the impugned orders being clearly in violation of Section 25F, such orders had to be declared as ab initio void and illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioners amounted to retrenchment? 3. Whether the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were applicable in these cases?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners were workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as they were employed mainly in a clerical capacity and the managerial functions, if at all, performed by them were purely incidental. The Court further held that the termination of the services of the petitioners amounted to retrenchment as defined under section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court also held that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were applicable in these cases and the impugned orders being clearly in violation of Section 25F, such orders had to be declared as ab initio void and illegal.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated January 16, 1984, quashed the impugned orders terminating the services of the petitioners and compulsorily retiring them, and directed the petitioners to be reinstated on the post held by them with full back wages.

JUDGMENT

1. - All the above special appeals are directed against the same judgment of learned Single Judge dated January 16, 1984 as such all these special appeals are also disposed of by one single order.

2. Almost identical pleas have been taken by all the petitioner-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) in these cases, but to appreciate the controversy raised in these cases, we would refer to the pleadings of Ismail Khan Special Appeal No. 64/1984.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they were Managers of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies (in short PACS) Bharatpur District. They were holding these posts on substantive basis and were permanent employees. The Managing Director Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bharatpur passed an order under Rule 17 of Krishi Rin Datri Sahakari Samitiyonke Vyawasthapakon Ke Chayan, Niyukti Avam Sewa Niyam, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1977) compulsorily retiring the petitioners from the post of Manager. The order issued in the case of Ismail Khan is reproduced as under:

dk;kZy; nh Hkjriqj lSaV~y dksvkijsVsfo cSad fy0 Hkjriqj dzekad@_.k@293 fnukad 14&7&83 (8&7&83) Jh bZLekbZy [kka O;oLFkkid] xzke lsok lgdkjh lfefr fy0] }kjk lgk;d vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh] ia0 lfefr] uxjA fo"k; %& vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fr ckcrA fnukad 8&7&83 dh desVh dh cSBd gqbZA ftl cSBd esa vkidk ekeyk izLrqr gqvkA desVh esa ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd O;oLFkkid lsok fu;e 1977 ds fu;e 17 ds vUrxZr vkidh vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fr djnh tkosA vr% desVh ds fu.kZ; fnukad 8&7&83 dh vuqikyuk esa vkidkas fnukad 8&7&83 ds e/;kUg i'pkr~ lsok ls fuo`r fd;k x;k gSA
A similar kind of order has been issued in respect of the petitioners. All the petitioners challenged their orders of compulsory retirement and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions as such the petitioners have filed these special appeals.

4. An objection was raised before the learned Single Judge and also before us that the Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Bharatpur, was not an authority or instrumentality of the State and do not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such no writ petition is maintainable against the Bank. Learned Single Judge in this regard after making reference to Raj. Coop. Dairy Fed. Ltd. Jaipur v. Maauhar Lal Sharma (1983 RLR 558) , Apex Court in Ramana v. International Airport Authority (AIR 1979 SC 1628) , May Hasia v. Khalid (AIR 1981 SC 487) , Som Prakash v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 212) , field that the Central Co-operative Bank Bharatpur was an instrumentality of the State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and a writ petition can be entertained against them. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Darned Single Judge and hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Coop. Bank is under the control of the Government and its financial resources are also controlled and contributed mostly by the Government and the officers employed in the Bank are amenable to the control and jurisdiction of the Government and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

5. The next objection raised in these cases by the learned Advocate General was that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of filing a revision before the State Government or the Registrar. Co-operative Societies as contemplated under section 128 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and the petitioners having not availed of such alternative opportunity. were not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge had repelled such objection raised on behalf of the respondents and in our view also, no such objection can be maintainable on behalf of the respondents. In these cases the legal validity of the relevant rules has been challenged by the petitioners and the State Government or the Registrar are not c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1984 Supreme(Raj) 474

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHN.M.Kasliwal, V.S.Dave, JJ.Phool Chand - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan & ors. - RespondentD.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 51 of 1984 and 12 other Spl. Appeals.Decided On : 24-09-1984

Managers of Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Cases Referred (5)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.M.Kasliwal, V.S.Dave, JJ.
Phool Chand - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 51 of 1984 and 12 other Spl. Appeals.
Decided On : 24-09-1984