ORDER
D. Murugesan, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as casual labour on 18.5.92 in the third respondent society namely, the Government Telecommunication Employees’ Cooperative Society Limited. His services were regularised with effect from 6.1.96 as Peon. Factually, the name of the petitioner was not sponsored through employment exchange and he was recruited directly by the third respondent society. He was served with a memo dated 9.9.96 by the third respondent to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated, as directed by the first respondent namely, the Director of Employment and Training in his letter dated 17.6.96, since the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 1138 Labour and Employment Department dated 25.9.78. Questioning the letter dated 17.6.96 and the Government order dated 25.9.78, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the third respondent society is a society registered under the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. The competent authority to issue direction would be the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 47 of the said Act. Issuance of memo by calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he was appointed without reference to the employment exchange by placing the Government Order is totally outside the jurisdiction of either the first respondent or the State Government. He would also submit that in any case, the provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 are not applicable to the appointment of unskilled worker. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that both the impugned letter and the Government Order are liable to be set aside.
3. The submission of Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent society is almost identical with the submission of Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioner insofar as the applicability of the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 only to the service conditions of the petitioner. He would also produce the special bye-laws and contend that the only authority competent to interfere in the service conditions of the petitioner would be the Central Registrar. By the fact that the society is registered under the Central Act, the State has no role to issue directions, muchless directing action against the petitioner as his appointment was made contrary to the impugned Government Order dated 25.9.78.
4. Mr. S.V. Durai Solaimalai, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, would submit that the third respondent society was originally registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912). Hence, the society should be considered as a society registered under the State Act and in such event, is obligated to comply with the directions issued by the State. Hence, the learned Government Advocate submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Government Order dated 25.9.78 and the consequential letter issued on 17.6.96.
5. I have given my due consideration to the submissions of the respective learned counsel. The fact that the third respondent society is a Multi-State Cooperative Society is not disputed. The third respondent society was registered in the name of The Government Telecommunication Employees’ Cooperative Society Limited in the city of Madras with Registration No. G-499 under Act 2 of 1912. The said Act was a State Act. Till such time the Central Government enacted the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Act”), the third respondent society continued to be a society registered under the State Act. By virtue of Section 95 of the Central Act, the Multi-State Cooperative Society, though registered under the State Act, would be deemed to be a Multi-State Cooperative Society registered under the Central Act. The relevant section reads as under:-
“95. Cooperative societies functioning immediately before re-organisation of States.–(1) Where by virtue of the provisions of Part II of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1856), or any other enactment relating to reorganisation of States any cooperative society which immediately before the day on which the reorganisation takes place had its objects confined to one State becomes, as from that day, a multi-State cooperative society, it shall be deemed to be a multi-State cooperative society registered under the corresponding provisions of this Act and the bye-laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.
(2) If it appears to the Central Registrar or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the authorised officer) that it is necessary or expedient to reconstitute or reorganise any society referred to in sub-section (1), the Central Registrar or the authorised officer, as the case may be, may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, place before a meeting of the general body of that society, held in such manner as may be prescribed, a scheme for the reconstitution or reorganisation, including proposals regarding–
(a) the formation of new multi-State cooperative societies and the transfer thereto in whole or in part, of the assets and liabilities of that societies, or
(b) the transfer, in whole or in part, of the assets and liabilities of that society to any other multi-State cooperative society in existence immediately before the date of that meeting of the general body (hereafter in this section referred to as the existing multi-State cooperative society).
(3) If the scheme is sanctioned by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present at the said meeting, either without modifications or with modifications to which the Central Registrar or the authorised officer agrees, he shall certify the scheme and upon such certification, the scheme shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, regulation or bye-laws for the time being in force, be binding on all the societies affected by the scheme, as well as the shareholders and creditors of all such societies.
(4) If the scheme is not sanctioned under sub-section (3), the Central Registrar or the authorised officer may refer the scheme to such Judge of the appropriate High Court, as may be nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice thereof, and the decision of that Judge in regard to the scheme shall be final and shall be binding on all the societies affected by the scheme as well as the shareholders and creditors of all such societies.
Explanation.–In this sub-section, “appropriate High Court” means the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the principal place of business of the multi-State cooperative society is situated.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a scheme under sub-section (2) includes any proposal regarding the transfer of all the assets and liabilities of any multi-State cooperative society referred to in clause (b) thereof, the scheme shall not be binding on such multi-State cooperative society or the shareholders and creditors thereof, unless the proposal regarding such transfer is accepted by that multi-State cooperative society by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present at a meeting of its general body. ”
By virtue of the above deemed provision, it cannot be now contended that the third respondent society still continues to be a society under the State Act. For all practical and legal purposes, the third respondent society should be deemed to be a society registered only under the Central Act and the provisions of the Central Act are alone applicable to the functioning of the third respondent society. Under Section 47 of the Central Act, the Central Government is empowered to give directions in the public interest which reads as under:-
“47. Central Government’s power to give directions in the public interest.–If the Central Government is satisfied that in the public interest or for the purposes of securing proper implementation of cooperative production and other developmental programmes approved or undertaken by the Central Government or to secure proper management of the business of the multi-State cooperative societies generally or for preventing the affairs of the multi-State cooperative society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members, any depositors or creditors thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any class of multi-State cooperative societies generally or to any multi-State cooperative society or societies in particular, the Central Government may issue directions to them or to it, from time to time, and all such multi-State cooperative societies or the society concerned, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions.”
By virtue of the said power, directions have been issued by delegating the power of the appellate authority namely, the Central Registrar to the Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Society appointed under the State Act. Except such delegation of power, no other power is vested either on the State Government or the officers of the cooperative societies functioning under the provisions of the State Act.
6. Based upon the above position of law, it must be now seen as to whether the impugned letter issued pursuant to the impugned Government Order are unsustainable. Before considering the validity of the impugned letter, it would be proper to consider the applicability of the impugned Government Order to the case of employees working in the Multi-State Cooperative Societies namely, the third respondent. Though the said Government Order was issued much prior to the Central Act, it could be made applicable in case of any action taken in respect of employees appointed before the Central Act has come into force. It must be also seen that the Act which is applicable on the date when the action is taken also would be relevant. Factually, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1992 much after the Central Act has come into force. Hence, the provisions of the Central Act and the special bye-laws framed there under are alone applicable to the service conditions of the petitioner. Applying a Government Order which was issued much prior to the Central Act to the case of an employee appointed under the provisions of the Central Act is impermissible. Though the validity of the Government Order is challenged, it must be construed that the said Government Order is applicable to the cooperative societies registered under the State Act and not to the cooperative societies registered under the Central Act namely, the third respondent society. When once such conclusion is arrived, the impugned letter dated 17.6.96 directing the services of the petitioner to be terminated on the ground that his appointment was made without reference to the provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 is also held to be unsustainable in the eye of law.
7. That apart, there is one more aspect in this matter as to the applicability of even Section 3(1)(d) of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 to the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1992 as casual labour and was subsequently absorbed only as Peon. He is an unskilled worker. The provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the case of an unskilled worker. This view has been taken by me in “THE MANAGEMENT OF TIRUTTANI COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, TIRUVALANGADU v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MADRAS AND ANOTHER (2001 (1) LLJ 589).” That judgment was based on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in “THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER v. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (1991 TNLJ 1)”. For the said reason also, the impugned letter dated 17.6.96 directing the services of the petitioner to be terminated on the ground that he was not appointed through employment exchange is unsustainable.
8. For all these reasons, I find every merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 17.6.96 is set aside. I further hold that G.O.Ms. No. 1138 Labour and Employment Department dated 25.9.78 is not applicable to the societies registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
