cw-6652/91-Mani Ram &Ors.Vs.State & Anr. & cw 5074/93-Rajendra Singh Vs. State & ors. Judgment dt.20.10.08
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
JUDGMENT
1. Mani Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6652/1991
2. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5074/1993
Date of Judgment : 20th October, 2008
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. P.P. Choudhary for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Joshi for the respondents.
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Dy. Government Advocate.
---------
BY THE COURT:-
1. By these two writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed
for a declaration from this Court by filing the present writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that the petitioners be
declared to be the employees of the respondent Central Cooperative
Bank as they are not the employees of the Primary Agriculture Credit
Societies (PACS for short).
2. Mr. P.P. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners urged that the appointment order Annex.1 was issued by
the Managing Director of the respondent Central Cooperative Bank
appointing the petitioners as Manager of Primary Agriculture Credit
Society (PACS) and merely because they were asked to work in such
credit societies through whom the agriculture loans were given by the
respondent Banks they cannot be treated as employees of the PACS.
cw-6652/91-Mani Ram &Ors.Vs.State & Anr. & cw 5074/93-Rajendra Singh Vs. State & ors. Judgment dt.20.10.08
2/6
Referring to the relevant service Rules for Managers of PACS, 1969
he urged that the appointment of Manager of the said PACS is made
by the respondent Bank on the recommendation of the Selection
Committee of which the Chairman of the Central Cooperative Bank is
the Chairman and the Executive Officer of the Bank is a Member
Secretary. He also submitted that the disciplinary powers of these
Managers vest with the Executive Officer of the respondent Bank
and, therefore, for all purposes these petitioners are to be treated as
employees of the respondent Bank.
3. On the side opposite, Mr. Rajesh Joshi learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Bank has submitted that the petitioners
are not employees of the respondent Bank and the employer-
employee relationship cannot be established in the writ jurisdiction of
this Court. He has also submitted that no cause of action in fact arose
to the petitioners to approach this Court by way of present writ
petitions seeking a declaration to this effect.
4. He also urged that if any such dispute arises, it would be
an industrial dispute which can be raised before the competent
Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and in the absence of any cause of action, the present writ
petition raises merely academic questions and does not deserve to be
decided on merit.
cw-6652/91-Mani Ram &Ors.Vs.State & Anr. & cw 5074/93-Rajendra Singh Vs. State & ors. Judgment dt.20.10.08
3/6
5. He also submitted that the service Rules of Managers of
PACS framed in 1969 stood repealed and thereafter fresh Rules have
been framed in the year 2003 and again in the year 2008. None of
these Rules have been challenged by the petitioners either in the
original writ petitions as filed nor by seeking any amendment in the
writ petitions and, therefore, the writ petition as instituted or framed
as it stands today cannot be decided.
6. Mr. Rajesh Joshi also drew the attention of the Court
towards the decisions of this Court in the case of K.R.G.S.S.S. Ltd.
Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. – 1991 (2) RLR 371 and decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Samitiyan
Vyavasthapak Union etc. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Civil Appeal
No.4235/1996 decided on1st March, 1996). Relying on the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajasthan Rajya
Sahakari Samityan Vyavasthapak Union & Anr,. Vs. The Judge,
Industrial, Rajasthan & anr. – 1984 WLN 415, he submitted that the
petitioners could approach the Industrial Tribunal by raising the
industrial dispute for establishing their employer employee
relationship with the respondent bank and also claiming parity in pay
etc. with the other employees of the Bank. He also submitted that the
definition of ‘Manager’ in 1969 Rules clearly stipulated that such
Managers like the petitioners shall have no relationship with the
services of the Bank employees and cannot claim any parity on the
basis of pay and other benefits payable to the employees of the
cw-6652/91-Mani Ram &Ors.Vs.State & Anr. & cw 5074/93-Rajendra Singh Vs. State & ors. Judgment dt.20.10.08
4/6
respondent Bank. He further urged that PACS being different juristic
persons and societies duly registered under the provisions of the
Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act were different from the
respondent Banks and the petitioners could not thrust themselves
upon the respondents banks as employees. In the end he submitted
that since these all are disputed questions of facts, the writ
jurisdiction is not the proper remedy and therefore, the present writ
petitions deserve to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsels at length and perused the
relevant rules and judgments cited at the Bar.
8. An specific question was put to the learned counsel for
the petitioners as to what was the cause of action which compelled
the petitioners to approach this Court in the year 1991 and strange
came the reply that since in the reply filed by the respondent Bank
they have denied the relationship of the petitioners as employer-
employee, therefore, this is an issue which is required to be decided
by this Court in the present writ petitions. On the question as to what
was the specific cause of action which compelled the petitioners to
file these writ petitions seeking this kind of declaration, the Court
drew a blank from the counsel for the petitioner.
9. Apparently the averments made in the writ petition and
the relief claimed in the prayer clause discloses no cause of action for
cw-6652/91-Mani Ram &Ors.Vs.State & Anr. & cw 5074/93-Rajendra Singh Vs. State & ors. Judgment dt.20.10.08
5/6
which the petitioners could have approached this Court for seeking a
declaration of the nature claimed by them. What for they needed this
declaration and in how and in what manner before coming to this
Court the respondents denied them this status is not disclosed in the
writ petitions. For claiming parity in the pay scale with the
employees of the Bank, the definition of ‘Manager’ of PACS even in
1969 Rules prohibits the same. The petitioners have not challenged
the said definition or the validity of the Rules as such in the writ
petitions. These Rules of 1969 are no longer on the statute book and
have been substituted in the year 2003 and further in the year 2008, as
contended by the respondents. No declaration as claimed by the
petitioner can be granted in favour of the petitioners under the
repealed Rules of 1969. The questions whether they are employees of
the Bank or not, whether they can claim such parity of pay and other
benefits or not are definitely disputed questions of facts which require
evidence to establish those facts. This could only be done, in the
opinion of this Court, by raising proper industrial disputes in the
forum provided under the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
No such blanket declaration as claimed by the petitioners was either
called for at the stage in the year 1991 when the petitioners
approached this Court nor can the same be given even at this stage.
Counsel for the petitioners was at pains to explain that in view of the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sahakari
Samitiya’s case decided on 1st March, 1996 (supra) the petitioners
were entitled to such declaration, it is needless to say that if any
cw-6652/91-Mani Ram &Ors.Vs.State & Anr. & cw 5074/93-Rajendra Singh Vs. State & ors. Judgment dt.20.10.08
6/6
observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court can be of any help to the
petitioners they can be so helpful only in properly instituted case.
Since the petitioners have failed to disclose any cause of action for
approaching this Court, this Court does not find anything to apply the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of the
present case.
10. The writ petitions, in the opinion of this Court, are
absolutely misconceived and without any cause of action arising to
the petitioners. The submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that
the denial of status of the employee by the respondent bank in the
reply to the writ petition raises this issue, surprises this Court. The
writ petition has to stand on its own legs and cause of action has to be
properly disclosed and established in the writ petition itself. The
denial of averments made in the writ petition and the objections
raised in the reply of the respondents can hardly furnish any cause of
action to the petitioners.
11. Therefore, this Court is of the clear opinion that these
writ petitions are misconceived and are not maintainable. The same
are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
[ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.
item No.1 & 2
babulal/-