Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. K.L. Arora And Others vs The Registrar on 19 March, 2009
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
C.W.P. No. 15293 of 1990
Date of Decision: March 19, 2009
Dr. K.L. Arora and others
...Petitioners
Versus
The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
For the Petitioners: Mr. J.K. Sibbal, Senior Advocate,
with
Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate.
Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate,
Mr. O.P. Sharda, Advocate,
Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab,
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, and
Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be Yes
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This order shall dispose of a bunch of 132 petitions as common questions of law are involved therein. However, for putting the controversy in its proper perspective, facts are being stated from C.W.P. No. 15293 of 1990. The petitioners, who are employees of the Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited- CWP No. 15293 of 1990 2 respondent No. 2 (for brevity, 'the Federation') have been recruited as Veterinary Officers and their services are being continuously used by the Federation or loaned to respondent Nos. 4 to 10, which are District Cooperative Milk Producers Unions (for brevity, 'the Unions'). All the petitioners constituted a common cadre. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant them pay and allowances in accordance with the pay scale and allowances viz. Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance etc. or any other compensatory allowance given to the employees of the Punjab State by its notification dated 15.2.1990 (P-5) with effect from 1.1.1986. A direction has also been sought for payment of arrears with compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum and also for quashing order dated 12.11.1990 (P-12) passed by the Federation, discontinuing the application of the pay scale as adopted by the State Government on the ground of financial stringency.
2. It is pertinent to notice that in the connected petitions, the petitioners have been working on various posts of Accountants, Junior Accountants, Assistants, Milk Procurement Assistants Grade- II, Senior Clerk, Clerks, Junior Scale Stenographer, Head Draftsman, Draftsman (Mech.), Draftsman (Civil) & Sectional Officer etc. either with the Federation or various milk Unions and similar prayers for grant of pay scale equivalent to their counter part employees of the Punjab Government and its corporate bodies have been made.
3. It would also be necessary to notice certain other common facts, which are central to the controversy. The petitioners CWP No. 15293 of 1990 3 have claimed that in order to give impetus to the supply of milk and earnings of milk producers, keeping in view the interest of general public, the State of Punjab in collaboration with the milk producers, launched the setting up of Cooperative Societies at the village level for milk producers, which are known as Primary Milk Producers Cooperative Societies. These societies in the villages combine as members of the District Level Societies, which are also engaged in the task of production, supply and marketing of milk and milk products. Such Societies are known as District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited. These District Level Unions are the members of the Federation and, therefore, combine themselves to constitute the Federation at the State level, which is the apex Cooperative Society connected with the production, supply and marketing of milk and milk products.
4. The petitioners have supported their claim for maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. For proving that the Federation alongwith Unions are instrumentalities of the State or any other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, they have asserted that the subscribed share capital of the Federation as on 31.3.1990 was Rs. 2,10,00,000/- out of which Rs. 1,39,00,000/- were contributed by the Punjab Government. According to the bye-laws of the Federation, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab as also other nominees of the State Government are on its Board of Directors. The Managing Director of the Federation is also appointed only with the approval of the Registrar. The petitioners have also pointed out that financial CWP No. 15293 of 1990 4 control of the State on the Federation is so deep that the State Government also extends the facility of huge loans to the Federation as and when required for its working.
5. In respect of the Unions, the share capital of the State Government is so predominant that 2/3rd of the share capital are owned by the State Government, which makes it simply an instrumentality of the State. That apart, the petitioners have claimed that the Federation and the Unions are discharging vital governmental functions concerning production, supply and marketing of milk, which is a basic essential commodity and to make provision for the same is the primary duty entrusted to the State. It is on that premise that the petitioners have put forward the claim that the functions of the Federation and the Unions are akin to those of State Government.
6. To further buttress their stand reliance has been placed on the provisions of Sections 26(2), (2A), (2B), (3) and (4) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the 1961 Act'), which reads thus:-
"26. Election and nomination of members of committee.
(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1). -
(a) Where the government have subscribed to the share capital of a co-operative society or has guaranteed the repayment of the principal of and payment of interest on CWP No. 15293 of 1990 5 debentures issued for loans raised by a co-
operative society, the government or any person authorised by it in this behalf, shall have the right to nominate on the committee such number of persons, not exceeding three or one-third of the total number of members thereof, whichever is less, as the Government may determine:
Provided that where the Government have subscribed to the share capital of a co- operative society to the extent of twenty lacs of rupees or more, the Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of the society, -
(a) appoint one of the members nominated in the aforesaid manner as Chairman of the committee of such society; or
(b) nominate another member in addition to those nominated in the aforesaid manner and appoint him as Managing Director:
Provided further that no person shall be appointed to act as Managing Director unless he is a member of the Indian Administrative Service, Punjab Civil Service (Executive CWP No. 15293 of 1990 6 Branch) or a Deputy Registrar, a Joint Registrar or an Additional Registrar, Co- operative Societies.
(b) Where the Industrial Finance corporation, the State Finance Corporation or any other financing institution notified in this behalf by the Government has provided finance to a co-operative society, the Industrial Finance Corporation, State Finance corporation or other financing institution, as the case may be, shall have the right to nominate one person on the committee.
(2A) Where the Government appoints a Chairman or Managing Director under the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (2) the Chairman or Managing director, if any, as the case may be, holding office immediately before such appointment shall cease to hold office on such appointment.
(2B) The terms and conditions of service of the Managing Director or Chairman, as the case may be, appointed by the Government shall be such as may be determined by the Government and the remuneration payable to the Managing Director for Chairman as the case may be, shall be paid out of the funds of the co-
operative society.
CWP No. 15293 of 1990 7
(3) A person nominated under sub-section (2) shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government or the Corporation or other financing institution as the case may be.
(4) Where, in a co-operative society in which shares have been subscribed for liability by way of guarantee for borrowing exceeding fifty per centum of the working capital of the society has been undertaken by the Government, a difference of opinion in respect of any matter arises between the nominated members of the committee and other members thereof the matter shall be referred by the committee to the Government whose decision thereon shall be final and will operate as if the same were a decision taken by the committee."
(emphasis added)
7. It has, thus, been claimed that the Federation and the Unions are instrumentalities of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. At this stage, some facts explaining the historical background of the formation of the Federation and Unions may also be noticed. Initially the work of the dairy development in the State of Punjab was looked after by the Milk Commissioner. Subsequently, the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited (for brevity, 'PDDC') was formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The entire share of PDDC belonged to the State of Punjab. The CWP No. 15293 of 1990 8 employees working under the Milk Commissioner were also transferred to PDDC. After formation of the Federation the entire assets and liabilities of PDDC including its employees were placed at the disposal of the Federation w.e.f. 9.4.1983. The share capital of the Federation was also contributed by the State of Punjab. The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federation is elected every year from amongst the elected members of the Unions, which are affiliated to the Federation. During the time i.e. 13.2.1980 to 29.7.1981 and 6.10.1984 to 8.10.1986, when the members of the Board of Directors of the Federation were not elected, the functions of the Federation were controlled by the State of Punjab by appointing Administrators. On that count also it has been claimed that the Federation is State or its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In that regard, reliance has also been placed by the petitioners on the judgments reported as R.S. Goyal v. State of Punjab, 1989 (3) SLR 258 and Ajay Bhatia v. State of Punjab, 1991 (1) RSJ 563.
9. The petitioners have further asserted that the Board of Directors of the Unions consist of Government representatives such as Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh or his nominee, one nominee from the financing agency, one nominee from the National Dairy Development Board, one nominee from the Federation and three nominees of the Government. The accounts of the Unions are audited by the Chief Auditor, Cooperative Societies, CWP No. 15293 of 1990 9 Punjab, Chandigarh, and in that regard a letter dated 22.1.1990 has been placed on record (Annexure P-3 with CWP No. 4418 of 1992).
10. The petitioners have further claimed that from time to time State Government come to the rescue of the Federation and its affiliated Unions by providing funds for clearing the outstanding payments. For example, on 22.4.1990, the Managing Director of the Federation requested the Government for release of Rs. 12.32 crores for clearing outstanding dues (Annexure P-4 with CWP No. 4418 of 1992). Subsequently, an amount of Rs. 12 crores was released by the Punjab Government on 9.5.1990. Likewise, on 2.5.1990, the National Dairy Development Board also released a sum of Rs. 4 crores in favour of the Federation and its affiliated Unions.
11. The petitioners have further claimed that all of them except Dr. K.L. Arora and Dr. H.K. Chauhan (Petitioner Nos. 1 and
8) were directly recruited by the Federation on various dates prior to 15.4.1983 as Veterinary Officers with the understanding that the Federation would use their services directly or loan their services to the 'Unions' for a short period. In this manner, the services of the petitioners are inter-changeable on the direction of the Federation either from one Union to another or from the Union to the Federation or vice-versa, depending upon the requirements of the Federation. The petitioners have asserted that Dr. K.L. Arora and Dr. H.K. Chauhan (Petitioner Nos. 1 and 8) were appointed by the PDDC prior to 1983 and after transfer of its assets and liabilities to the Federation in pursuance to agreement dated 15.4.1983 they also started to draw their pay and allowances from the Federation. It has been claimed that the posts held by the petitioners are CWP No. 15293 of 1990 10 equivalent to the posts of Veterinary Officers or Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Punjab though the nomenclature is different. The officers posted as Veterinary Officers or as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons perform the same duties and possess the same qualifications of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry.
12. Prior to 1.8.1980 the pay scales of Veterinary Officers/Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the Animal Husbandry Department in the State of Punjab was Rs. 400-1100. The same scale of pay and allowances like DA/HRA/CCA etc. was adopted by the Federation. With effect from 1.8.1980, the pay scales of the Veterinary Officers employed by the State of Punjab in the Animal Husbandry Department were revised to Rs. 850-1700, which were also adopted by the Federation for its employees. Accordingly, the petitioners were adjusted in the pay scale of Rs. 850-1700 plus allowances w.e.f. 1.8.1980. After acceptance of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, the pay scales were further revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the pay scale of Rs. 850-1700 was revised to Rs. 2100-3700. The pay scales of other categories of employees were also revised by the State Government. In the Animal Husbandry Department, a separate category of posts known as 'Assistant Directors' in the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-3900, was also carved out which comprised posts other than the post of Veterinary Officers or Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. In that regard, the petitioners have placed on record the extract of Rule 3(g) and (h) of the Punjab Civil CWP No. 15293 of 1990 11 Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 (for brevity, 'the 1988 Rules') and its Second Schedule (P-2).
13. It is claimed that the Federation also approached the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab-respondent No. 1 under Section 84(a) of the 1961 Act for according approval to the revised pay scales for its employees as well as employees of the Unions. On 2.6.1989, the Registrar-respondent No. 1 accorded the approval for implementation of the recommendations of the Third Punjab Pay Commission for the employees of the Federation and its Unions (P-3). On 5.6.1989, the Federation implemented the recommendations of the Third Punjab Pay Commission and revised the pay scales and allowances with effect from 1.1.1986 (P-4). The pay scale of the petitioners was accordingly revised to Rs. 2100-3700 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
14. On 15.2.1990, the State Government further made an amendment in the 1988 Rules and the pay scales of the Veterinary Officers of the Punjab Government Animal Husbandry Department, who were earlier drawing the pay scale of Rs. 850-1700 prior to 1.1.1986, has been revised to Rs. 2200-4000 instead of Rs. 2100-3700. It has further been provided that after 8 years of service the pay scale of Veterinary Officers would be Rs. 3000-4500 and after 18 years of service it would be Rs. 3700-5300 (P-5).
15. The petitioners also represented to the Federation and the Unions for revision of their pay scale in consonance with the notification dated 15.2.1990 (P-6). On 9.6.1990, a legal notice was also served (P-7), however, no response was received. CWP No. 15293 of 1990 12
16. The petitioners have also referred to Rule 1.7 and 1.8 of the Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Services (Common Cadre) Rules, 1980 (for brevity, 'the 1980 Rules'), which governs their service conditions. Rule 1.7 and 1.8 reads thus:-
"Categorisation, qualification and pay structure of the employees of the Common Cadre.
1.7. The various categories covered by the common cadre and pay-scales, qualifications and experience of each of the categories of the posts shall be specified in Annexure-I. Provided that the Board of Directors of the Federation may add or delete any post or category of posts or revise the scale of pay or fix the qualifications and experience contained in Annexure-I from time to time with the approval of the Registrar Co-op. Societies."
"Pay of employees in Common Cadre.
1.8. Pay of employees of the Federation and Unions who are taken on the Common Cadre or deemed to be taken on Common Cadre under rule shall be fixed in the grade specified in Annexure-I, according to the principles of pay fixation laid down in the Punjab Civil Services Regulations Vol. I Part-1."
17. On 12.11.1990 (P-12), the Federation issued a notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to all the CWP No. 15293 of 1990 13 employees on the pretext of financial stringency showing its intention to effect the changes specified in the annexure annexed with the said notice, which reads thus:-
" The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. Chandigarh, had been following the Punjab Govt. in the matter of wage structure and payment of other allowances like Dearness Allowance/HRA/CCA/Rural Allowance etc. Now the Milkfed has been forced into a situation of grim financial crisis and is struggling hard in fighting this battle for ultimate survival. In view of such an unavoidable situation any further financial burden on account of increase in wage bill would become unbearable. It has, therefore, been decided to stop the following the State Govt. pattern in the matter of wage payments like Dearness Allowance/HRA/CCA/Rural Allowance and other compensatory allowances as may take effect after the expiry of 21 days notice. Thus, after the expiry of the notice as mentioned above, the following amendments in the Milkfed Common Cadre Rules, 1980 and the Milkfed Non-Common Cadre Rules, 1985, will become effective for the purposes of regulating the above allowances to the employees:-
1. Milkfed Common Cadre Rules, 1980:
Existing Addition/Modiciation CWP No. 15293 of 1990 14 "3.1. Except as "The following proviso to provided otherwise in this rule needs to be the rules an employee added: appointed to a category Provided that the matter shall draw the minimum regarding payment of in the scale fixed for the DA/HRA/CCA/RA or any category in Annexure I. other compensatory allowance shall be regulated as per the decisions of the BOD of Milkfed, which may be taken from time to time keeping in view its paying capacity." 2. MILKFED NON COMMON CADRE RULES, 1985. "22. Dearness "DA/HRA/CCA/RA or Allowance, HRA, City any other compensatory Compensatory allowance Allowance shall be & other compensatory admissible to the allowance shall be employees of Milkfed as admissible to the per decisions of the BOD employees of Milkfed as of Milkfed which may be admissible to the taken from time to time employees of Punjab keeping in view its paying Govt. from time to time. capacity." CWP No. 15293 of 1990 15
2. The officers/employees/workmen may please note this change."
18. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Federation and the Unions several preliminary objections have been raised. It has been asserted that the petitioners cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution because the Federation and the Unions does not satisfy the tests enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India to classify them as State as envisaged by Article 12 of the Constitution. It has been contended that the Federation has been registered as a Society under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and is a State level apex body of various cooperative milk societies at the village level and district cooperative milk producers unions operating at district level. The members of the cooperative societies at village and district level elect their Presidents and members, who further elect their Chairman. All the Chairmen of the District Cooperative Milk Producers Unions are Directors on the Board of Directors of the Milkfed. It has, however, been admitted that there is one nominee of the National Dairy Development Board, one nominee of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, and one nominee of the State Government in the Board of Directors. The affairs of the Federation are conducted by the Board of Directors and all decisions are taken by majority vote. It has been pointed out that as on 31.12.1991, the share capital of the Federation was 459.76 lacs out of which 270.76 lacs belonged to the members of the Cooperative Societies and 189 lacs was the share capital of the Government, which was to be CWP No. 15293 of 1990 16 returned in seven years with a moratorium period of two years in five yearly equal instalments. It has, thus, been denied that the Federation and the Union are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and no writ is competent against them.
19. On merits, it has been asserted that the administrative control over the affairs of the Federation is vested in the elected Board of Directors and the Managing Director and the State Government does not have any administrative or financial control over it. Only temporary financial assistance in the shape of share capital is invested by the Government, which is liable to be refunded within stipulated period of seven years. It has further been denied that the functions of the Federation and Unions are akin to those of the State Government because all the administrative and functional decisions of the Federation and the Unions are taken by their elected Board of Directors. The State Government except for subscribing to the share capital, does not exercise any effective and pervasive control over their day-to-day affairs/functions. The respondents have also denied the nature of duties being performed by the petitioners is the as that of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons of the State Government. It has been asserted that the petitioners were appointed on specific terms and conditions and there is no provision in the statutory rules that same pay scale are to be given to its employees as are being drawn by the same category of employees in the State Government. However, it has been admitted that in respect of certain category of posts the respondents have been voluntarily and without any legal obligation, following the pay scales of the State CWP No. 15293 of 1990 17 Government but it is not obligatory on their part to blindly follow the pay scales of the State Government for its employees. The factual position about grant of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 has not been denied. However, it has been asserted that due to financial stringency it is not possible for the Federation to grant the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 and 3700-5300 to the petitioners.
20. In the written statement filed in CWP No. 4418 of 1992, it has been specifically denied that in the appointment letter it was mentioned that the petitioners would be entitled to the pay scales as granted by the State of Punjab to its employees for all times to come. In fact, the petitioners were offered a specific pay scale and allowances as were admissible to corresponding Punjab Government employees. The revision of pay scales of the employees of the Punjab Government has no automatic application upon the employees of the Federation or the Unions. They have their own pay structure as approved by the Board of Directors and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab.
21. It is pertinent to notice here that controverting the stand taken by the respondents in the written statement filed in CWP No. 4418 of 1992, the petitioners therein filed a replication wherein it has been denied that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners have also placed on record various orders regarding appointment of Managing Directors of the Federation by the Government to show that the Government has deep and pervasive role in the affairs of the Federation (Annexures P-18/A to P-18/C with CWP No. 4418 of CWP No. 15293 of 1990 18 1992). They have also brought on record statistics of the share capital position of the Unions vis-à-vis the Government from 1978-79 to 1991-92. The petitioners have also placed on record various communications issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies Punjab to the Milkfed and Milk Unions concerning their day-to-day affairs and service conditions of the employees (P-19 to P-28 with CWP No. 4418 of 1992).
22. Mr. J.K. Sibal, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Ravi Kapur, Mr. O.P. Sharda and Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that there is a deep and pervasive control of the Government over the Federation as well as on the Unions. Placing reliance on Section 26(2) of the 1961 Act, they have submitted that it is on account of subscribing to share capital of a Society or furnishing guarantee for the repayment of the principal and payment of interest of debentures issued for loans raised by the Society that the Government acquire the right to nominate on the committee such number of persons not exceeding three or one-third of the total number of members thereof. They have further highlighted that initially also the share capital of the Federation was Rs. 459.76 lacs out of which Rs. 189 lacs were invested by the Government. The same was to be returned to the Government in seven years with a moratorium period of two years in five yearly equal instalments. Another argument raised by the learned counsel is that initially there used to be Milk Commissioner controlling the activity of production, procurement and manufacturing of milk products. It was only thereafter that the activities of the Milk CWP No. 15293 of 1990 19 Commissioner were taken over by the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation, which was hundred percent owned by the State Government. The whole activities concerning the production and procurement of milk of the Corporation were transferred to the Federation, as has been noticed in the preceding paras. Learned counsel have also highlighted by placing reliance on notification dated 22.3.1993 (P-28) issued by the respondent State declaring that the procurement of milk, marketing and distribution has public utility service under the Essential Commodity Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the 1955 Act'), which would show that the functions as connected with the procurement, production or manufacturing of milk and milk products is a public function and even on the anvil of functional test, the Federation and the Unions must be considered to have rendered public function making them amenable to writ jurisdiction. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on two Single Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of R.S. Goyal (supra) and Ajay Bhatia (supra). They have also made a reference to the order dated 27.12.1992 declaring that the persons specified in the notification were not entitled to contest the elections as Sarpanch or Panch in the Panchayat elections as per the provisions of Section 6(5)(g) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. After obtaining opinion of the Law Department, which was based on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487, the employees of the Federation were not permitted to contest the general elections for the Gram Panchayat. CWP No. 15293 of 1990 20 It has further been pointed out that the Managing Director of the Federation cannot be appointed without the prior approval of the Registrar. Learned counsel have also supported their submissions on the issue of amenability of the Federation and the Unions to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 by citing a 5-Judge Bench judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Chiman Lal Gupta v. The Punjab State Cooperative Supplies and Marketing Federation Limited (R.S.A. No. 2745 of 1985, decided on 3.11.2004). It has been argued that the 5-Judge Bench has placed reliance on various tests laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ajay Hasia (supra); Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628; Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1329; and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111. Learned counsel for the petitioners have laid emphasis on the fact that financial control, administrative control and nature of functions discharged by the Federation and the Unions would not leave any doubt that they are instrumentalities of the State and have to be subjected to the discipline of Article 14 of the Constitution to act fairly. They have gone to the extent of arguing that Federation and the Unions to a large extent enjoy monopolistic status in the field of milk and milk products because of strict control imposed by the 'Milk and Milk Product Order 1992' issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the 1955 Act. According to the learned counsel it indicates that the Federation as well as its Unions enjoy a monopoly status which is State conferred or at least CWP No. 15293 of 1990 21 State protected. They have, thus, argued that the following tests laid down in Ajay Hasia's case (supra) stand fulfilled:-
" (1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the Corporation is held by the Government it will go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government.
(2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character.
(3) It may also be a relevant factor............
whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected.
(4) Existence of "deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.
(5) If the function of the Corporation is of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government.
(6) Specifically, if a department of Govt. is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor CWP No. 15293 of 1990 22 supportive of this inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government."
23. On merit of the controversy, learned counsel have pointed out that the equivalent pay scales stand granted to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1994 and the dispute is confined only to the period from 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1994. They have attacked the plea of financial stringency set up by the respondents by arguing that it has no legal basis to deny the benefit of the pay scale. In that regard reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India, 1990 (Suppl.) SCC 191 and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation v. G.S. Uppal, (2008) 7 SCC 375.
24. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned State counsel, Mr. D.S. Patwalia and Mr. Alok Jagga, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that there is neither any financial control much less a deep pervasive control. The total share capital of the State Government by no stretch of imagination be considered as more than 40% of the total share, which according to the learned counsel is not sufficient to hold that Federation is an agency of the State Government. In support of their submission, learned counsel have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of VST Industrial Ltd. v. VST Industries Workers' Union, (2001) 1 SCC 298. They have then submitted that out of 17 members of the Board of Directors only three nominee have been representing the State although the Managing Director is appointed by the Government. It has been further argued that merely because the CWP No. 15293 of 1990 23 Registrar could annul a resolution passed by the Federation, would not bring the Federation or the Unions within the sweep of Article 226 read with Article 12 of the Constitution. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad, (2003) 8 SCC 639, it has been argued that when various tests laid down in Ajay Hasia's case (supra) are applied to the Federation and considered cumulatively then it becomes evident that the Federation and the Unions are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Elaborating their argument, learned counsel have submitted that in the aforesaid judgment only 50% of the share was held by the State Government and the requirement of financial control was held not to be fulfilled despite the fact that the Chini Mill used to receive some financial assistance from the Government. It has been further submitted that like the Federation and the Unions, the Chini Mill in the cited case also did not enjoy monopoly status. It was on the aforesaid facts Hon'ble the Supreme Court refused to hold the Chini Mill to be a instrumentality of the State. Learned counsel have also elaborated the concept of 'public function' by citing the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657. Placing reliance on para 11 of the judgment, learned counsel have argued that a body is performing a "public function" when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the public or that section of the public as having authority to do so. Learned counsel have then made submission by placing reliance on the averments CWP No. 15293 of 1990 24 made in paras 6, 7 and 8 on the merit of the controversy and argued that the decision of the Board of Directors is to prevail. According to the learned counsel unless the pay scales granted by the Government have been adopted by the Federation the same cannot be claimed as a right by its employees. It has been emphasised that in the appointment letter issued to one of the petitioner (in CWP No. 4418 of 1992) it was specifically mentioned that he would be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 225-500 plus allowances and the pay scale given to the employees of the Punjab Government on the corresponding post would not be applicable to the petitioners automatically. Learned counsel also denied that the Government has ever revised the pay scales of the employees of the Federation or its Unions. They have submitted that the Federation prepares its own structure of revision of pay scale and get it approved from the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies as per the requirement of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (for brevity, '1963 Rules'). Therefore, it has been argued that the financial difficulties of the Federation and its Unions would be valid ground for granting the pay scales different than the one laid down by the State Government.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, have not been able to controvert the fact that the Federation as well as its Unions have been given the benefit of the pay scales to their employees with effect from 1.1.1994 equivalent to the pay scales of the employees of the respondent State working on the corresponding posts.
CWP No. 15293 of 1990 25
26. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing various paper books with their able assistance and various provisions of the Act and bye-laws, we are of the considered view that the following two questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:-
(1) Whether the Federation and its Unions would be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution so as to attract the duty to act fairly as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1994, which have been granted to their counterparts working with the respondent State, especially when before 1.1.1986 and after 1.1.1994 the petitioners have been granted the same pay scales?
RE: QUESTION No. 1:
27. The first question needs to be answered by considering existence of various ingredients as laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia's case (supra), which have been extracted in para 21 above. Before we examine the first requirement, it would be apposite to notice the view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as to how these requirements are to be considered and applied, as expressed in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra). After examining a plethora of authorities in the cases of Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449; P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 141; B.S. CWP No. 15293 of 1990 26 Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute, 1984 (1) SCR 395; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguli, AIR 1986 SC 1571; Tek Raj Vasandi @ K.S. Basandhi v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 237; All India Sainik Schools Employees' Association v. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society, New Delhi, 1989 (Suppl.) 1 SCC 205; Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational Research and Training, (1991) 4 SCC 578; and Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. The Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association, JT 2002 (1) SC 61, Hon'ble the Supreme Court summed up the mode to apply the aforesaid six tests in para 40 of the judgment, which reads thus:-
"40. The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722] are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be - whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under CWP No. 15293 of 1990 27 statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State."
28. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph shows that in each case the question required to be considered is whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive and that mere regulatory control would not be sufficient to make the body a State.
29. When we apply the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case it becomes evident that more than 40% of the share capital of the Federation and its Unions is contributed by the State, which satisfies the first test partially. The State Government has always come to the rescue of the Federation and its Unions by releasing huge funds for clearing the outstanding payments. On 9.5.1990 when the Managing Director of the Federation requested, the Government had released Rs. 12 crores. Likewise on 2.5.1990, the National Diary Development Board also released a sum of Rs. 4 crores to Federation and Unions. One factor core to the Federation and Unions is that 'PDDC' was transferred to them, which was a Government Company. It is also not disputed that three Directors of the Board of Directors are nominated by the State and the Managing Director cannot be appointed without the approval accorded by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. The Managing Director has to be either IAS Officer or PCS Officer or Joint Registrar as per Section 26(2) of the Act. All the petitioners except two of them are CWP No. 15293 of 1990 28 erstwhile employees of the Government Company 'PDDC', which has merged with the Federation and Unions along with its assets and liability. As on 31.3.1990 when the petition was filed, the subscribed share capital of the Federation was Rs. 2,10,00,000/- out of which Rs. 1,39,00,000/- was subscribed by the Punjab Government, which is more than 68%. Likewise, the Registrar is entitled to annul any resolution passed by the Federation and can also issue direction by virtue of provision of Rule 45 of the 1963 Rules.
30. It shows complete control of the Government over the policies of the Federation and Unions. It further shows that structurally the Corporation is comprised of officers of the Government. It is also pertinent to examine the face of the Federation and Unions in its historical perspective. It has come on record that the work concerning dairy development in the State of Punjab was used to be looked after by a Government appointed 'Milk Commissioner'. Subsequently 'PDDC' was constituted which was a Governmental company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The entire share capital of 'PDDC' belonged to the State of Punjab. The employees working with the 'Milk Commissioner' were also transferred to 'PDDC'. After formation of the respondent Federation the entire assets and liabilities of 'PDDC' including its employees were placed at the disposal of the Federation. It has been regarded as one of the 'strong factor'. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court gave a wider meaning to the concept of agencies and instrumentalities of the State. It has been held that merely because a Government Corporation is registered under the CWP No. 15293 of 1990 29 Companies Act, 1956 or under Co-operative Societies Act, 1860, would not rob it of its real character that it is agency or instrumentality of the State if it is carrying out government function, wholly controlling its policy and substantially contributing to its finances. The following para substantiate the strong factor if the Corporation is created by merging a Government department:-
"...... But the public nature of the function, if impregnated with governmental character or 'tied or entwined with Government' or fortified by some other additional factor, may render the corporation an instrumentality or agency of Government. Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference. It will thus be seen that there are several factors which may have to be considered in determining whether a corporation is an agency or instrumentality of Government." (emphasis added)
31. We further find that functions of the Federation as well as Unions are essentially public functions. It has come on record that under Section 3 of the 1955 Act, the Central Government has issued Milk and Milk Products Order 1992. In pursuance to the aforementioned Order, the respondent State has also issued Milk Procurement Order dividing the whole State into Milk Procurement Areas and milk beyond particular limit has to be procured only by the Unions. It leads to an inference that the State has exerted monopolistic control over the milk, milk products and milk CWP No. 15293 of 1990 30 procurement and in any case the functions being discharged by the Federation as well as its Unions are public in nature. In that regard it would be profitable to place reliance on the following observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra):-
"......It may also be a relevant factor to consider whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected for there can be little doubt that State conferred or State protected monopoly status would be highly relevant in assessing the aggregate weight of the corporations' ties to the State. Again if the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. ......"
32. We are of the view that once a body has been found discharging public functions affecting the lives of millions of people of the State then it cannot remain immune from the discipline of Article 14 of the Constitution and mere regulatory control may not be effective. The functional test was considered by Mathew, J. in the cases of Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra) and Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, AIR 1975 SC 1331. It was the functional test which weighed with the 5-Judge Bench of this Court in Ms. Ravneet Kaur v. Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, 1997 (4) SLR 221, holding that the medical education is an important function of the State, which affects a large number of CWP No. 15293 of 1990 31 population. Therefore, even in cases where an institution was purely private body, receiving no grant-in-aid from the State, this Court has held the same to be amenable to writ jurisdiction. There is a Constitutional recognition now available that the State could make any special provision for advancement for socially and economically backward citizens or for the Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes in matters concerning their admission to the educational institute including private educational institutions whether aided or un-aided by the State. The aforesaid recognition has been given by 93rd Constitutional amendment. Therefore, it is too late in the day to argue that a body performing public function could remain immune from the discipline of Article 14 of the Constitution and it has to act fairly.
33. The cumulative effect of all the aforementioned factors is that the Federation and the Unions have to be regarded as instrumentalities of the State and amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, we find that the respondents have already been held amenable to writ jurisdiction in the case of R.S. Goyal (supra) and Ajay Bhatia (supra).
34. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, we hold that Federation and its Unions are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.
RE: QUESTION No. 2:
35. The second question as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the grant of pay scales equivalent to their counterparts in the State of Punjab, especially when their request has been CWP No. 15293 of 1990 32 conceded with effect from 1.1.1994 and the same position prevailed before 1.1.1986. It is well settled that in order to answer the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution, fairness in all actions must be implicit. It is not disputed that the report of the Pay Commission recommending revision of pay scales was submitted to revise the pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986 and the pay scales with effect from 1.1.1994 have been accepted by the Federation and its Unions. The reason for not implementing the recommendation with effect from 1.1.1986 is stated to be financial stringency. Firstly, on facts it is not beyond debate. Moreover, the financial stringency is no longer an excuse for refusing to revise the pay scales, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of M.M.R. Khan (supra); G.S. Uppal (supra); The High Court Employees Welfare Association, Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 1 SCC 334; and Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187. Therefore, the basic ground of financial stringency falls to the ground.
36. We further find that in the case of Purshottam Lal v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 651 when employees of a Corporation were excluded from the grant of benefit of revised pay scales then the argument of the State was rejected which was to the effect that the Government was fully within its right to accept the recommendation in respect of one category of employees as against other. Speaking for the 5-Judge Bench, Chief Justice Sikri, J. held in para 15 of the judgment as under:-
CWP No. 15293 of 1990 33
"15. .......it was for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so to determine which categories of employees should be taken to have been included in the terms of reference. We are unable to appreciate this point. Either the Government has made reference in respect of all Government employees or it has not. But if it has made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accepts the recommendations it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are concerned."
(emphasis added)
37. Likewise in the case of Employees of Tannery Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1991 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 565, when the employees of the Tannery Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. were not granted the benefit of revision of pay scales, which was made available to their counterpart employees of the Cotton Corporation of India, then it was characterised as discriminatory. Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"14. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that respondent-corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India are distinct legal entities carrying on different trading activities and the petitioners cannot claim parity CWP No. 15293 of 1990 34 in pay-scales with the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India and that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked. It is no doubt true that the respondent-corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, are distinct legal entities. But at the same time it cannot be ignored that both are instrumentalities of the Government of India who is bound by the directives contained in Part IV of the Constitution.
15. xxx xxx xxx
16. State of U.P. v. J. P. Chaurasia [(1989) 1 SCC 121] on which reliance has been placed by Shri Mahajan deals with the question as to equation of duties and responsibilities for applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Therein this Court has held that the matter of equation of posts for the purpose of equation of pay must be left to the executive and must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission and that if there is such a determination by a Commission or Committee the Court should normally accept it. The principle laid down in the said decision was reiterated in the other decisions relied upon by Shri Mahajan. Here we are not concerned with equation of posts because the posts falling in the abovementioned four categories of employees in the respondent corporation as well as the Cotton Corporation of India are of the same level and employees working on these posts were having the same pay-scales in 1970. CWP No. 15293 of 1990 35
There is nothing on the record to show that after 1970 there has been any change in the duties and functions of the persons holding these posts in the two corporations which may justify fixation of different pay-scales for these posts in the two corporations. The pay-scales of the petitioners as revised by order dated April 25, 1986, cannot, therefore, be upheld. The respondents Nos. 1 and 3 should so revise the pay-scales of the petitioners as to be at par with pay-scales enjoyed by the employees falling in the same category in the Cotton Corporation of India on the date from which the said revised pay-scales are to be applied. Under order dated April 25, 1986, the revision of the pay- scales of the petitioners has been made with effect from August 1, 1983 and is valid up to July 31, 1987. The revision in the pay-scales of the petitioners should be made keeping in view the pay-scales and allowances enjoyed by the employees falling in the same category in the Cotton Corporation of India on August 1, 1983 and such revision may be made operative up to July 31, 1987, as provided in the order date April 25, 1986."
37. Once the Federation itself has conceded the implementation of the pay scales equivalent to the one given by the State Government to its employees although from different date, it hardly remains in doubt that splitting of such a date of implementation is absolutely unfair. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioners are entitled to get their revised pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986 in their respective cadres.
38. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion we direct that the petitioners be granted the benefit of revised pay scales in their CWP No. 15293 of 1990 36 respective cadres with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1994. We make it clear that their pay scales be fixed with reference to the date CWP No. 15293 of 1990 37 of revision of 1.1.1986 but their arrears be calculated in respect of period of three years and two months from the date preceding the date of filing of their respective petitions. Taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, we are not inclined to award any interest. Re: C.W.P. Nos. 1464 of 1992, 8087 of 1993, 810 of 1996 and 10579 & 18938 of 1995
39. On account of peculiar facts and the additional prayers made, these petitions are being dealt with separately on the issue other than the issue of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226. The main judgment making the respondents amenable to writ jurisdiction would apply to that extent. But the other prayers made by the petitioner(s) are being dealt with in this part of the order. Accordingly, in this section separate orders are being passed keeping in view different prayer(s) made in the aforementioned writ petitions apart from the common prayer, as noticed in the opening para of the judgment.
CWP No. 1464 of 1992
40. In this petition the sole petitioner Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal has also sought release of special increment by way of personal pay, proficiency step up and grant of seven days encashment of causal leave pertaining to the year 1989. The aforementioned claim made by the petitioner does not survive any more in view of the stand taken by the respondents in their written statement. In para 7 and 15 of the written statement it has been asserted that special CWP No. 15293 of 1990 38 increment has been granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17.7.1992 (R-1/2) and arrears of un-availed casual leave were released on 4.7.1992 (R-1/3).
CWP No. 8087 of 1993
41. In the instant petition the prayer made for setting aside order dated 2.1.1993 (P-11) passed by the Managing Director of the Federation, whereby full pay in respect of suspension period from 19.9.1991 to 22.4.1993 has been denied along with other benefits. The basic reason for claiming full salary in respect of suspension period is that the petitioner was asked to attend duty daily. It has come on record that the petitioner was reinstated yet departmental enquiries and criminal cases were pending against him. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed any material on record revealing the status of those enquiries or criminal trial. It would not be possible to opine on the claim of the petitioner without first knowing whether enquiry has ended in exoneration of the petitioner or it has ended in finding of guilty of misconduct. We have also not been apprised whether criminal trials have resulted in acquittal or conviction so as to afford justification for suspension. In respect of other reliefs also we have not been apprised any thing. In fact, no one has put in appearance to substantiate the claims made by the petitioner. Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition at this stage and grant liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition for claim of all the reliefs once again.
CWP No. 15293 of 1990 39CWP No. 810 of 1996
42. In this petition the petitioners have additionally sought a direction to the respondents to change the cadre structure as per the recommendations of the State Government. There is no merit in the claim made by the petitioners because it is well settled that the Courts do not interfere in the policy matters of the Government. In that regard reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2002(2) SCC 333. We do not find any merit in the prayer made by the petitioners in respect of change in cadre structure and accordingly the same is hereby rejected.
CWP Nos. 10579 & 18938 of 1995
43. Facts in both the cases are similar and similar legal issues would emerge. However, we refer the facts from CWP No. 18938 of 1995. The petitioner in the instant petition has prayed for issuance of direction to Milk Union-respondent No. 2 to count total period of service rendered by him in the Milk Union, Faridkot, for the purposes of seniority. He was appointed as Milk Procurement Assistant Grade-II with effect from 17.3.1981. He was posted at Milk Union, Faridkot (P-1). On his request he was transferred to Milk Union, Sangrur-respondent No. 2 on 8.7.1983. For some time he was continued on notional deputation. Thereafter on 4.9.1987 (P-
3), Milk Union, Sangrur addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that he was taken on notional deputation and if he wanted absorption CWP No. 15293 of 1990 40 in cadre of Milk Union, Sangrur, then he was required to resign from Milk Union, Faridkot. The letter spelled out the following six conditions:-
"1. That your existing basic pay shall be protected by the Malwa Milk Union, Sangrur.
2. That you shall have to resign from the post of MPA in Milk Union, Faridkot.
3. You will be treated on the cadre strength of Malwa Milk Union, Sangrur, consequent to the acceptance of your resignation by management of Milk Union, Faridkot.
4. That your seniority as MPA on the cadre strength of Milk Union, Sangrur shall be determined from the date of your joining the services in the Milk Union, Sangrur.
5. That you will be entitled for benefits of gratuity/P. leave etc. from Milk Union, Faridkot as per rules for the period of services rendered by you in Milk Union, Faridkot. The service length in Milk Union, Faridkot shall not in any case carried forward in this Union for the purpose of such benefits.
6. That in the other terms and conditions, you shall be governed by the rules and regulations of Milk Union, Sangrur as may come into force from time CWP No. 15293 of 1990 41 to time and as per the terms and conditions of your appointment letter, which shall be issued to you after acceptance of your resignation by Milk Union, Faridkot."
44. After resistance the petitioner resigned from Milk Union, Faridkot as Milk Procurement Assistant Grade-II (MPA) on 16.6.1988. On the same day he was given fresh letter of appointment (P-7). With regard to seniority no other condition was laid in the letter of appointment. Therefore, earlier condition No. 4 continued to govern the issue of seniority.
45. Respondent No. 2 has taken the objection concerning maintainability of the petition and delay of over 14 years.
46. It has come on record that the petitioner was transferred to Milk Union, Sangrur-respondent No. 2 on 8.7.1983. On 4.9.1987 the Milk Union, Sagrur, sent him a conditional offer, which the petitioner accepted by tendering resignation on 7.6.1988. There are many hurdles in the way of the petitioner. Of course delay may not be significant because provisional seniority list was issued in 1995. However, the delay is apparent when we examine the conditional offer made to the petitioner on 4.9.1987. He not only resigned on 7.6.1988 but accepted the posting at Milk Union, Sangrur as fresh appointment. He has cause of action in 1988 when he was clearly told that he was not to be given any seniority. If at all he was required to move the Court in 1988, whereas the present petition has been filed after more than seven years. It has come on record that CWP No. 15293 of 1990 42 transfer of the petitioner was at his own request which would certainly entail the consequences of losing seniority in respect of service rendered at Milk Union, Faridkot. Moreover, not even one of the incumbents of the post of MPA Grade-II, who is likely to be adversely affected, has been made party respondent. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the prayer made in these petitions and dismiss the same being without any merit.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JORA SINGH)
March 19, 2009 JUDGE
Pkapoor
2
1.CWP No. 2074 of 1987Kamikar Singh and others v. The Managing Director, Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and others2.CWP No. 3441 of 1987Jasbir Singh v. The Managing Director, Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and others3.CWP No. 7712 of 1987Kulwant Singh and others v. v. The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and others4.CWP No. 15293 of 1990Dr. K.L. Arora and others v. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others5.CWP No. 16855 of 1991Rajinder Singh Parmar v. The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and another6.CWP No. 1464 of 1992Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producer's Federation Limited and another7.CWP No. 4418 of 1992Balbir Kumar Walia and others v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others8.CWP No. 8087 of 1993Pawan Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab and others9.CWP No. 10579 of 1995 Satnam Singh v. The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and another10.CWP No. 18938 of 1995Gurjant Singh v. The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and another11.CWP No. 810 of 1996Balbir Singh and others v. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others12.CWP No. 13508 of 1996J.K. Kohli and others v. State of Punjab and others13.CWP No. 507 of 1998Hari Ram Garg and another v. The State of Punjab and others