Bhupinder Singh and Others vs Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who were working in the Field Office, seeking a direction to the respondents to treat them equal to the employees working on identical posts in the head office or district office in all respects i.e. in grant of holidays etc. Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 1.9.1994 (Annexure P-3), whereby, representation moved by one of the petitioners was rejected by the respondent.

Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that respondent had its head office in Chandigarh and various branches in the State of Punjab. All the employees of one cadre of the Markfed were performing the same duties whether they were posted in head office or district office or in the branch office. Qualifications, nature of duties and pay scales of the employees of one cadre were identical. Employees working in one cadre formed a common seniority list irrespective of the fact that whether they were working in the head office or district office or branch office.

Petitioners were senior branch officers, branch officers, field officers or field officers Grade II and were performing their duties in the branch office. Petitioners could be transferred to head office or district office. Grievance of the petitioners is that although, their counterparts working in district office or head office were working for five days in a week, whereas, petitioners were made to perform duties for six days in a week and some times they had to work on Sundays also. Therefore, this petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction that they should be provided the same facilities as were being provided to their counterparts working in the head office or district office.

Para Nos. 3 and 4 of the written statement filed by the respondent read as under:-

Contents of para 3 are not correct as stated. The correct facts are that respondent federation is a registered Co-operative Society with its registered office at Ropar and Head Office at Chandigarh. It has various branches in the State of Punjab. These branches are manned by the employees of the Markfed working under different Cadres from Salesman FO (Gr. II) to that of Sr. Branch Officer. It is wrong to suggest that all the employees of the Markfed form a single cadre. Each category of employee has separate seniority and separate cadre keeping in view different qualification, nature of duties and pay scale etc. The nature of duties of the employees working in the H.O. District office and Branch Offices are altogether different. The staff working on the ministerial posts in the H.O. or in the D.M. office perform different nature of duties than the staff/employees working in the Markfed, Branch Offices situated in the Field in the State of Punjab. It is submitted that the Branches situated in he State of Punjab are normally the godowns for storage of essential commodities, like fertiliser and pesticides etc. as well as procurement and storage of foodgrain stocks. These branch offices are manned by the Field staff designated as Salesman, field Asstt./F.O. Gr. 11 to that of Sr. B.O. subject to the categorisation of the branch concerned as the case may be. In these circumstances, the seniority list of the Field staff of the Markfed for each category is different who are normally posted in Branch offices of Markfed. However, for certain exigencies of the work, sometimes a Field employee is deployed to work in the Head office or in the District Office. The Branch offices of the Markfed situated in the state of Punjab are mostly at Tehsil level and are for all intents and purposes shops as defined in Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958. For ready reference the definition of the Shop is re-produced as below:

"Shop" means any premises where any trade or business is carried on or where services are rendered to customers and includes office, store-rooms, godowns sale depots or warehouses, whether in the same premises or otherwise, used in connection with such trade or business but does not include a commercial establishment or a shop attached to a factory where the persons employed in the shop are allowed the benefits provided for workers under the Factories Act, 1948.

Contents of para 4 are admitted to the extent petitioners are mostly Sr. Branch officers, Branch Officers, Field officers etc. However, it is denied that any post of Sr. Branch officer exists in the Head Office or in the Distt. Office. As submitted in para 3 above, keeping in view the exigencies or work at sometimes, a Sr. Branch Officer or a Field officer is deployed elsewhere in the interest of work. It is submitted that these posts inter transferable between the Branches situated at the Tehsil level or in some cases at the District level, but not in the Head Office ministerial post. Thus it is denied that any post of Sr. Branch officers, Branch Officers or Field officers exists in Head Office but a few employees are deployed in the exigencies of the work.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were working in the branch office of the respondents and were performing the same duties as their counterparts were performing in the district office or head office. However, they were not granted the same benefits like holidays etc. as were being provided to their counterparts working in the head office of district office.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that duties performed by the employees in the head office, district office and branch office were altogether different. The posts were inter transferable between branches situated in the tehsil or some cases at district level but not vis-a-vis the head office. It is only in the case of an exigency that the employees of the branch office were transferred to the head office, but it was never done in routine.

In the present case, petitioners are working in the branch office of the respondent. Petitioners are claiming that they should be granted the same facilities i.e. grant of holidays etc. as were being granted to their counterparts working in the head office/district office. At the time of filing of the petition, petitioners had placed reliance on a decision of this Court in CWP No. 5829 of 1988 decided on 23.4.1991 (Annexure P-2). Admittedly, the said decision was overruled by the Full Bench of this Court in Hari Chand and Others Vs. The State of Punjab and Others, . It is the specific case of the respondent that the duties of employees working in the head office or district office or branch office were altogether different. Therefore, petitioners cannot be treated at par with the employees working in the head office. It is also the case of the respondent that only few employees from branch office were deployed in the head office due to exigency of the work and not in normal course. In view of para Nos. 3 and 4 of the written statement filed by the respondent, reproduced above, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.