D. Munikrishnan, Tiruvarur Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Employees Union vs The Collector and Others

K. Chandru, J.—In these three Writ Petitions, the challenge is to the action of the District Collector in ordering transfer of Public Distribution

System to some other society.

In W.P. No. 6937 of 2009, the petitioner is a Sales Assistant in in Kelamangalam Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society. The

petitioner was informed by an order dated 31.3.2009 that he was relieved from the service of the Society on the ground that the petitioner should

report to another Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, wherein the business of running fair price shops was culled out. Apart from the fact

that such a Writ Petition is not maintainable, Mr. P.Mohanraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that by virtue of this order, the

petitioner will have to lose employment and therefore he is attacking the policy of the transfer of fair price shop to some other society as unjustified.

In W.P. No. 7142 of 2009, the case is filed by Trade Union representing the employees of the Cooperative Wholesale Stores challenging the

action of the District Collector in transferring the Public Distribution System to another public service cooperative stores.

In W.P. No. 19272 of 2009, it is the very same petitioner, who challenged the order dated 2.9.2009 issued by the Joint Director of

Cooperative Societies, Thiruvarur Region. By the said order, the work done by the earlier societies with reference to the public distribution system

was handed over to a new society. Mr. S.Kasirajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 13 of the Cooperative Societies Act. It

is stated that the procedures contemplated therein have not been followed in doing the transfer. Secondly, he submitted that the members of the

Union are likely to lose the employment, in view of the transfer of their business of public distribution system to some other society. He also

submitted that the new society is not having enough wherewithal to conduct such business.

Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy, learned Counsel for the impleaded societies submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the basic order dated

22.9.2009, in which the decision was taken to transfer on the basis of administrative grounds to various societies. Apart from the fact, he also

submitted that it is not open either to the employees of the society or to the trade union to challenge such action. It is beyond the purview of any

judicial review.

In this context, Ms. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Counsel for the impleaded societies referred to the judgment of this Court in the V.L.Spl.200

Arakonam Agricultural Cooperative Bank rep.by its Secretary K. Rajendran v. the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Ors. reported in 1999

W.L.R. 471. In that case, this Court had held that a Cooperative Society being a dealer cannot dictate to the Government or to the Rationing

authorities that the number of Cardholders should not be reduced at any point of time. Thereafter, in paragraph 8, it has been observed as follows:

Merely because an entrustment was made to another Society, taking into consideration the financial difficulties of a particular Society, the

Authorities are not barred from returning back the dealership to the earlier dealer when his financial position has improved. Why the authorities

insist on financial position is, that the consumer public should not suffer, and it is not preference of another dealer in one''s place.

By saying so, the petition filed by the Cooperative Society was rejected.

Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy, learned Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court an unreported judgment in the Tamil Nadu Cooperative

Marketing Societies Employees Association (Virudhachalam Unit) rep. by its Secretary v. the District Collector and others in W.P. No. 35605 of

2002 dated 28.11.2002. In that case, K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. held that in such matters, the workers have no locus stnadi to question such

orders and it was for the Society or any of its members of the Society to take up the issue.

In respect of the very same Cooperative Society, a case was filed before this Court in W.P. No. 14360 of 2000 in T.G. Saravanan v. the

Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Ors. dated 15.11.2007. In that case, this Court in paragraph 6 held as follows:

No cause of action has arisen for the petitioner to challenge the same in the present case. Even before any effective steps could be taken by the

respondents, the petitioner has rushed to this Court and got a stay order even for the proposal made by the third respondent. However, the

learned Counsel was fair enough to cite the judgment of this Court in Arakonam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank v. The Registrart of

Cooperative Societies and Ors. reported in 1999 W L.R. 471, where the question was whether the fair price shops running under the Cooperative

Societies dealing with the essential commodities, can be transferred. In this context, this Court has held that the society has no vested right over the

essential commodities. In any event, this Court finds that there are no merits in the Writ Petition.

The public distribution system, which is also running fair price shops is not directly coming under the business of the Cooperative Society. On

the contrary, it is an additional work furnished to the societies not under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act but by the orders of the

District Collector functioning under the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, if part of the business which was given as additional business to the

society is transferred, the employees cannot challenge on the ground that it is likely to result in their retrenchment. Therefore, the decision taken by

the authorities outside the Cooperative Society could not also be interfered with at the instance of the petitioners.

Even in cases where the employer himself decides either to disown or disengage such a business and whether the employees would have got

locus standi to question such decision came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Parry and Co. Ltd. Vs. P.C. Pal and Others, . The

Supreme Court held that it is the managerial discretion of an employer to organise and arrange his business in the manner he considers best. So

long as that was done bona fide, it was not competent for the Tribunal to question its propriety. If such a scheme of reorgnaisation results in surplus

stage of employees, the employer is not expected to carry the burden of such economic liability. Therefore, the locus standi of the employees to

question such managerial decision of the employer itself cannot be questioned.

In the present case, it was not even the decision of the respective Cooperative Society. But, on the contrary, the decision was taken outside

and over which business, the society itself has no say as held by this Court in the earlier decision referred to above.

In the light of the above, all the three Writ Petitions stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The connected

Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.