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/-