Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

operative Societies) appear. Considering the nature of the order impugned and the appeal, with the consent of the counsels, the appeal was heard finally on 12th October, 2012 and the matter posted to today for orders.

2. The writ petition was filed, as aforesaid, impugning the „order‟ dated 5th October, 2012 which is as under:-

"THE COOPERATIVE STORE LTD - SUPER BAZAR CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI - 110001 Date: 05.10.2012 NOTICE All the workers of The Cooperative Stores Ltd. Super Bazar are hereby informed that the bidder had committed to provide employment for a period of three years to the evaluation committee constituted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for bid‟s evaluation. The recommendations of the evaluation committee were accepted in its entirety by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.02.2009.
The commitment to provide employment for three years stands fulfilled as on 04.10.2012. Now therefore, in keeping with the aforesaid, all the workers are directed not to report for work w.e.f. 05.10.2012. Full and final payment of all the dues uptill 04.10.2012 has already been credited to respective bank accounts.
For The Cooperative Store Ltd - Super Bazar Managing Director"

3. The contention of the respondent no.1 in the writ petition is, that in the year 2004-05 Trade Unions of workers of the „Super Bazar‟ filed several Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court against the closure of „Super Bazar‟ and for revival thereof; that the Supreme Court, for revival, allowed several bidders and finally accepted the bid of the appellant no.2 M/s. Writers and Publishers Ltd., who though took over the management of „Super Bazar‟ during the year 2009-2011 but did not take any steps for revival thereof; that in the circumstances the respondent no.3 The Central Registrar, The Co-operative Societies issued notice of last opportunity to the management to take immediate steps for revival of „Super Bazar‟; that the act of suddenly declaring the employment of more than 950 employees as having come to an end is illegal and is in violation of the right to life and livelihood of the members of the respondent no.1 Union; that the members of the respondent no.1 Union were in fact absorbed as the employees of the Society; that the „order‟ dated 5th October, 2012 violates Articles 14 & 16 and is in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. The argument, in a nutshell though made at great length with reference to plethora of documents (stated to be relevant and not filed by the respondent no.1 Union along with the writ petition), of the senior counsel for the appellants is that as per the terms approved by the Supreme Court, the appellant no.2 M/s Writers and Publishers Ltd. while taking over the management of „Super Bazar‟ was obliged to retain the erstwhile employees of „Super Bazar‟ for a period of three years till 4 th October, 2012 only and has no obligation to continue with the employees thereafter and hence the Notice supra dated 5th October, 2012 impugning which the writ petition was filed. In fact the maintainability of the writ petition is also challenged.

6. The counsel for the respondent no.2 Officer Liquidator of the „Super Bazar‟ has contended that though Officer Liquidator is a member of the Board of „Super Bazar‟ but no Board meeting of which the said Officer Liquidator had notice, was held in this regard.

7. Of course the senior counsel for the appellants has controverted the aforesaid contentions and has also referred us to the short order of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Suman Dutta (2000) 10 SCC 311 to contend that the Supreme Court has deprecated such practice of interim order of stay of termination, holding that the same would tantamount to usurpation of public office without any right in the event of the writ petition being finally dismissed.