Regular Second Appeal No. 2745 of 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2745 of 1985 Date of decision: 09.02.2010 Chiman Lal Gupta ...appellant Versus The Punjab State and others ...respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Esha Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The appellant-plaintiff was appointed as Field Officer (Cotton) Markfed in the Punjab State Cooperative Supplies and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh on 23.7.1980. He (appellant-plaintiff) was issued a show cause notice by the defendant-Federation for having committed some misconduct. After receiving reply, he was discharged from service on 7.1.1981. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit to impugn this order on the ground that he was terminated without serving any charge sheet or without holding any inquiry. The plea was that he was condemned unheard. The order was also termed as non speaking order, indicating that the authority passing the order had not applied its mind. There would be hardly any need to notice in detail the Regular Second Appeal No. 2745 of 1985 2 grounds of challenge made by the appellant-plaintiff to impugn this order. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court held that the order of termination dated 7.1.1981 was unlawful but declined to grant the declaration by holding that the Federation is a private body and registered under the Punjab Cooperative Society Act. Accordingly, it was viewed that defendant-Federation was neither a State nor fell within the definition of authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The appellant-plaintiff was accordingly held not entitled to the declaration of reinstatement. He filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ferozepur, which upheld the view taken by the trial Court and observed that appellant-plaintiff at best could seek declaration that the impugned order was wrong but cannot seek relief that the said order is null and void and he be treated in service. The appellant-plaintiff was given a liberty to seek damages for the wrongful discharge from service. Aggrieved against the said finding, the appellant filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order dated 26.11.1986 by referring to various judgments as available till then, found that there was divergence of view regarding the status of Markfed as to whether it would be instrumental or the agency of the State or not. The Single Judge found that the view taken in Mr. K.N. Chopra and others versus State of Punjab and others in CWP No. 3969 of 1984, was in conflict with the Division Bench judgment in the case of P.S. Saini and another versus The State of Punjab and others in CWP No. 4410 of 1999, Ajmer Singh versus The Regular Second Appeal No. 2745 of 1985 3 Registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab and other, 1981 Punjab and Haryana 107. The learned Judge accordingly referred the matter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to resolve this conflict. The matter was accordingly referred to Division Bench, which vide its order dated 3.10.1988 found that correctness not only of Division Bench would be under consideration but that of a Full Bench judgment. The Division Bench accordingly viewed that this issue deserved consideration by Bench of Five Judge Bench or more and accordingly the papers were directed to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting the Bench of atleast of five Judges. Ultimately, the issue has now been considered and decided by the Full Bench consisting of 5 Judges vide their order dated 3.11.2004. After referring to number of decision, the Full Bench has held that Markfed is an agency and instrumental of the State and falls within the ambit of other authorities appearing under Article 12 of the constitution of India. Accordingly the ratio of law laid down in K.N. Chopra's case (supra) was upheld and the contrary view of S. Ajmer Singh's case (supra) and P.S. Saini's case (supra) were not found to be laying down a correct law. After the decision, the present RSA was ordered to be placed before the Single Judge for decision on other substantial question of law. Once this substantial question of law has been answered in favour of the appellant, there is nothing else to be considered. As already noted, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has already held that the order of termination was bad and illegal. The Regular Second Appeal No. 2745 of 1985 4 grievance of the appellant was limited to this extent that the declaration sought for his reinstatement was not ordered on the ground that the respondent-Markfed was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Since that question has now been answered by the Full Bench, the view expressed by the trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court in this regard cannot be sustained. Accordingly the finding given by the trial Court to this extent that Markfed is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and upheld by the First Appellate Court is set aside. The necessary consequence would be that the declaration sought by the appellant that he be reinstated after holding that his termination order was null and void would deserve to be allowed. Counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the appellant expired on 29.4.1994. His LRs have been impleaded and are pursuing the present RSA before this Court. The RSA thus would stand allowed to this extent and the judgment and decree passed under appeal would stand modified, whereby the relief of reinstatement was declined. Let the decree sheet be prepared. The appellant would be entitled to receive -the consequential benefits. February 09, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE