ORDER
K. Chandru, J.
1. With the consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing.
2. The petitioner, who was a Salesman formerly working under the first respondent in the present writ petition, challenges the order of the second respondent dated 09.01.1997 and of the fifth respondent dated 30.9.1997. In the first order dated 09.01.1997, by the orders of the District Collector, Coimbatore, and also the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, Coimbatore Region, the Fair Price shops run by the first respondent Society were directed to be handed over to different Societies along with the workmen employed in the said Societies. The petitioner, who was at Shop No. 27-A Govindanaicken Palayam at the relevant time, was directed to work under Coimbatore Co-operative Marketing Federation. Along with him, a helper was also transferred. The order was said to have come into force from 09.01.1997. Instead of joining in the said post, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P. No. 2889 of 1997 questioning the transfer order. He also stated that if he accepts the transferred post, his salary was likely to be reduced. Without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the writ petitioner, this Court, by order dated 04.3.1997 directed the District Collector, Coimbatore, to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 03.02.1997. When he found that the said order was not complied with, he filed Contempt Application No. 286 of 1998 and the same was closed by this Court by order dated 13.7.1998 recording that the District Collector had already passed an order on 05.7.1998 rejecting the representation of the petitioner.
3. In the proceedings dated 30.9.1997, the District Collector informed that the transfer of the employees of the Co-operative Societies comes under the Co-operative Department and the Department was also directed to inform the petitioner with reference to the grievance projected by him. It is in this context, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the same.
4. Heard the arguments of Mr. C. Deivasigamani, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as well as Mr. P.B. Sivashanmuga Sundaram, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. I. Paranthaman, learned Government Advocate representing the fifth respondent and perused the records.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that pursuant to the order of transfer, the petitioner has not joined in the new post and is only fighting before this Court with various petitions. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was appointed by the Elected Board of Society of the first respondent and he cannot be transferred by the fifth respondent, who is the District Collector. He also stated that the first respondent Society and the third respondent Society are separate entities and, therefore, he cannot be directed to work under a new Society. He further stated that once he becomes a permanent employee of the first respondent Society, then the question of his transfer to some other employer does not arise.
6. It is seen from the records produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was specifically appointed in a village shop as a Sales man and his services were regularised only in the shop run by the Society under the Fair Price scheme, which can be seen from the order dated 08.4.1992. Even the subsequent increase in the scale of pay was given only treating the petitioner as Sales man employed in the Fair Price shop.
7. It is needless to say that the Fair Price shops, being shops dealing with the essential commodities, are run under the control of the District Collector and the Co-operative Society has no right to insist on continuity with the commodities dealt with by the Fair Price shops. In the impugned order dated 09.01.1997, it was decided that the Fair Price shops run by the first respondent Society should be handed over to some other Society both for better management and in the interest of the public. When the Society itself never disputed the change of business, it is not open to the employees like the petitioner, to challenge the transfer of business made from the first respondent to that of the third respondent. The statement of the petitioner that he cannot be sent to a new employer without his consent may be legally correct but if that is accepted, it will result only in his termination from the service of the first respondent. In fact, the District Collector, in his proceedings dated 05.7.1998, has clearly stated that the business of Fair Price shop was transferred along with the personnel employed therein and the other workmen have already joined and the allegation that there will be reduction in emoluments is only based on apprehension and not based on facts. The petitioner was also informed that if there is any such reduction in his emoluments after his joining in the new Society, then his grievance shall be projected before appropriate authorities and redressal can be had.
8. The first respondent, Joint Registrar of the Thudiyalur Co-operative Agricultural Services Limited, has also filed a counter affidavit stating that it is the District Collector, who has control over the shops in distribution of essential commodities. She has also stated in the counter affidavit that except the petitioner, no other person is left out in joining the new post.
9. The apprehension raised by the petitioner and his refusal to join in the new post are really not in the interest of public and he has to suffer the consequences for not doing the same. Even otherwise, when there is a transfer of business from one employer to the other, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are clear especially, Section 25FF, which will protect the interest of the workmen. Therefore, there is no merits in the writ petition and the order passed by the respondents impugned in the writ petition do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
10. In the light of the above, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. In view of the same, the Miscellaneous Petition in W.P.M.P. No. 35734 of 2004 also stands dismissed.