AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for records of 1st Respondent pertaining to his order made in R.C. No. 8447/K2/97 dated 4.6.1997 and quash the same.
Deponent of the affidavit is Secretary of Petitioner-Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, as stated in para 1 of the affidavit. It is stated so by learned Counsel for Petitioner also. It is further said that the Workers/Employees of various Milk Producers Co-operative Societies are engaged in procuring milk from the producers of milk for the Society. Milk is procured at different rates ranging from Rs. 7-80. P. to Rs. 8.30.P. and as prescribed by the Society, it is sold to public in the local at the rate of Rs. 10/- per litre and also through District Co-operative Societies. It is also said that the Milk Producers Societies are procuring, milk ranging from 300 litres to 2,000 litres per day. Loss, if any, occurred while procuring milk has to be borne by the concerned vendor of the Society. It is said that the difficulty faced by the Society''s employees are not redressed by the appropriate Authority so far. First Respondent issued a letter dated 4.6.1997 stating that the Primary Societies which procure milk from producers should account minimum of 2% (i.e., 2 litres for 100 liters) of the total milk produced in a day. That is, the Society should account 102 litres for every 100 litres purchased, as if the Society has purchased 102 litres from the milk producers. It is further said that if the said order is allowed to stand, every day the employees will have to pay huge amount from their pockets. This, according to the Petitioner, is unreasonable and is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by 4th and 5th Respondents. Though no separate counter affidavits are filed, contentions are similar.
It is said that no loss will occur by procuring milk since no wastage is anticipated. Therefore, the employees do not face any difficulties in this regard. It is further said that no employee has put forward the grievance and, therefore, there is no question of redressing any grievance at all. According to Respondents, the letter dated 4.6.1997 has been issued taking into consideration the best interest of the Society. In fact, it is said that most of the Societies were accounting for excess milk. It is submitted that for the spilled milk the employees are not accounting, and they earn more. The complaint that the vendor has to pay Rs. 400/- daily from his pocket is denied. According to Respondents, in most of the cases, the Society earns profit and the same is distributed among the members. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is unreasonable. Legally also, the Writ Petition is not maintainable by a Trade Union. Respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Learned Additional Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition.
I have already said that the Writ Petition is filed by the Employees Union, which is a registered Trade Union. Petitioner has no case that the right of the Trade Union is in any way affected, or any prejudice is caused to the Trade Union by the impugned letter. It has nothing to do with the Trade Union''s right, and the letter dated 4.6.1997 does not deal with any of the rights or properties of the Trade Union. The individual right of the vendors is the matter in issue. In Writ Petition, the Trade Union cannot challenge the individual rights of a milk vendor so long as its rights are not affected. The preliminary objection raised by learned Additional Government Pleader is only to be sustained.
On factual basis also, I do not think that there is any merit in this Writ Petition. First Respondent has taken into consideration the relevant materials and he has got the jurisdiction to pass the impugned Order. It must also be noted that none of these Societies has questioned the same. The members have also not questioned the same. On factual basis, Respondent has contended that there is excess milk than procured and there is no question of any loss sustained by any milk vendor. This is a matter which is within the special knowledge of the Authorities, and it is also a disputed question of fact.
It is also said in the counter-affidavit that if the impugned order is not fully implemented, the profit for every society will be more, and the same will be distributed among the members. It is also submitted by learned Additional Government Pleader that excepting the Petitioner-union, no Co-operative Societies in the District have any complaint with the directions given in the letter dated 4.6.1997, and they have no grievance at all till this date.
Taking into consideration the above facts, I feel that no ground has been made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned letter is neither illegal nor one issued without jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs, conceded W.M. Ps. are also dismissed consequently.