IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 640 of 2001 alongwith CWP Nos. 653 of 2001, 766 of 2001, 768 of 2001, 47 of 2002, 48 of 2002, 49 of 2002 and 50 of 2002. Date of decision: 6.8.2008 CWP No. 640 of 2001 State of H.P. Petitioner. Versus Roshan Lal and others. Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CWP No. 653 of 2001 State of H.P. Petitioner. Versus Shyam Singh and others. Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CWP No. 766 of 2001 State of H.P. Petitioner. Versus S.S.Pundir and others. Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CWP No. 768 of 2001 State of H.P. Petitioner. Versus Lekh Raj Brotra and others. Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CWP No. 47 of 2002 H.P.State Cooperative Marketing and another. Petitioner. Versus Roshan Lal Chauhan and others. Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CWP No. 48 of 2002 H.P.State Cooperative Marketing and another. Petitioner. Versus Shyam Singh and others. Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CWP No. 49 of 2002 H.P.State Cooperative Marketing and another. Petitioner. Versus Lekh Raj and others. Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CWP No. 50 of 2002 H.P.State Cooperative Marketing and another. Petitioner. Versus S.S.Pundir and others. Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. Learned counsel for the parties: Mr. Ram Murti Bishts, Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocate. Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. All these petitions are being decided by one common judgement since common question of law and facts are involved in the case. Briefly stated the facts are that the original applicants before the learned Tribunal were employees of different societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. All these societies were facing liquidation. The employees of the societies filed applications before the learned Tribunal praying that their services be not terminated or in the alternative the State be directed to take over their services. One of the first petitions decided by the learned Tribunal was Himachali Devi and others vs. Mandi District Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Ltd., 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 3 Mandi and others being O.A. No. 1004 of 1991 decided on 25th June, 1993. The learned Tribunal gave the following directions:- “8. In view of above, it will be expedient and in the interest of justice to dispose of this application with the following directions:- (i) Respondent No.4 is directed to explore the feasibility of providing alternative employment to the applicants in Government departments/ Public Sector Undertakings, semi-autonomous bodies and other development projects under execution or likely to be executed in the near future, preferably under Respondent Nos. 2 and 3; (ii) The Chief Secretary will identify the potential employer(s) and make allocation of the applicants to such employer(s) for absorption within a period of six months from the receipt of the copy of this order and the potential employers shall employ the applicants within next three months. In the event of there being no post supernumerary posts may be created for them; (iii) The terms and conditions for absorption of the applicants elsewhere will be determined and settled by the Chief Secretary; (iv) The respondent No.1 shall make payment of salary and allowances to the applicants as may be admissible upto June 30, 1993, as early as possible and in no case later than September 30, 1993. These directions were passed on the basis of certain observations made by the Apex Court in Special 4 Leave to Appeal No. 5940 of 1992 titled H.P. Cooperative Marketing Consumers Workers Union and others vs. H.P. Cooperative Marketing Consumers and another, wherein the Apex Court had observed as follows:- “…. The State of Himachal Pradesh may consider the question of granting alternative jobs if it is feasible and report to this Court on the returnable date.” It would be pertinent to mention that after the Apex Court passed the aforesaid directions, the State apprised the Apex Court that it was not possible to provide jobs to all the employees and the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed on 24.8.1992. Aggrieved against the directions passed in O.A No. 1004 of 1991, the State of Himachal Pradesh approached the Apex Court. However, since there was delay in approaching the Apex Court the SLP was dismissed as time barred. The Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition observed as follows:- “There is an inordinate delay of 420 days in filing the S.L.P. there is no ground to condone the delay. The S.L.P. is, therefore, dismissed as time barred. In view of the facts that the SLP has been dismissed as time barred. There is no occasion to express any opinion on the merits of the impugned order and that question would remain open for consideration in an appropriate case. Since the direction of the Hon’ble Tribunal is merely to consider the representation, there is no occasion as yet to consider the points raised in the 5 S.L.P. which would remain open for consideration at the appropriate stage after decision is taken on merits, if necessary. The SLP is, therefore, dismissed.” It is obvious that the Apex Court did not give any findings on the merits of the case. Following the orders given in O.A. No. 1004 of 1991 the learned Tribunal in a number of cases gave similar directions which are under challenge in these petitions. The learned Tribunal did not consider the impact of the dismissal of the earlier Special Leave Petition and the observation in the second Special Leave Petition. It appears that the factum that the appeal filed by the Union had been dismissed was not brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned Tribunal could not have issued any directions to the State to grant employment to persons who were being retrenched from the Consumer Societies since they were not employees of the Government or Government undertakings. They were the employees of Societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. If such societies are liquidated, the employee may suffer a hardship but this does not mean that the Court has jurisdiction to issue directions to the State that all the employees should be given employment. In fact, the Apex Court finally gave no such direction. 6 In view of the above discussion, all the writ petitions are allowed and the orders of the learned Tribunal are set-aside. We may, however, clarify that the State on its own can always consider a scheme for rehabilitation of the employees of the Societies but no directions in this behalf could have been given by the learned Tribunal or by this Court. All the writ petitions are disposed of in view of the aforesaid observations. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 6th August, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™