M.P.State Co-Op.Dairy Fedn.Ltd.& Anr vs Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar & Ors

4. Federation is a society registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). It is an apex society classified as a Central Society. It is registered under Section 9 of the Act. The Government of Madhya Pradesh through its Veterinary Department had been carrying out in certain areas of the State activities of supply of milk through its offices established for the said purpose. A company known as Madhya Pradesh State Dairy Development Corporation Limited was incorporated on or about 22.03.1975 for carrying out the business of sale of milk and its products. It was 3 registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Its object was development and procurement of milk and for bringing out a `white revolution'.

5. Federation was constituted to promote sale of milk and its products inter alia with a view to providing employment to agriculturists, milk suppliers so as to enable it to implement a World Bank scheme effectively. The said company underwent voluntary winding up. Its assets both movable and immovable were transferred to the Federation as part of shareholdings of the State Government.

(two) any of the Government Employee, shall not be retired from the service on the ground of normal 8 disability, if within one year of the date of screening he is going to be retired after completing his age of superannuation. Abovesaid condition shall not be applicable in cases of employees having doubtful integrity."

29. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the appellant herein would come within the purview of the definition of `State' as contained in Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

40. Federation, therefore, in our opinion, having regard to the fact that there was no material to show that the respondents - employees had become dead wood, inefficient or corrupt, must be held to have abused its power.

43. It may be placed on record that neither there exist any such provision nor such a stand had been taken before the High Court. Furthermore, it is well-settled that while a power is exercised by an authority, ordinarily, the reasons contained in the order should be supported by the materials on records.

46. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court.

A bare perusal of the said Regulation would clearly show that it applies in a case where an order of dismissal and/ or compulsory retirement by way of punishment is set aside. It is not a case where order of compulsory retirement had been passed by way of punishment. Respondents - employees herein were not charged with any misconduct. 39 The order of compulsory retirement was issued in terms of the Regulation 13 of the Regulations only.

49. We, therefore, are of the opinion that 50% back wages should have been granted.

It is evident from the record that even before the learned Single Judge the said contention was not raised at the first instance. Only in the review petition, the said contention was raised. But, the said review petition was dismissed. As indicated hereinbefore, the said contention was again not raised before the Division Bench. We, therefore, are not inclined to agree with the contention that in terms of the 1995 Act, the appellant should be given 100% back wages.

53. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeals filed by the Federation are dismissed and that of the employees are allowed to the extent aforementioned with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/- in each appeal.

April 15, 2009