JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed on dally wage basis as peon by the Co-operative Society for a limited period. He has worked for more than 240 days with artificial break. Subsequently the petitioner is permitted to work but the payment of his salary was stopped. Therefore, the petitioner had moved this writ petition seeking a relief directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as well as his salary be paid regularly including the arrears.
2. Sri K. K. Trtpathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner was allowed to continue and had completed more than 240 days work, he is entitled to be regularised. His next contention is that his services could not be terminated in violation of Regulation 29 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 read with Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act and, therefore, the alleged termination of his service is bad in law and cannot be sustained,
3. Sri A. Kumar. assisted by Sri O. P. Slngh, learned counsel for the respondents Society, on the other hand contends that under Regulation 5 Society did not have any authority to appoint any person without the approval of the Board or consultation with the Board. He further contends that the Society may appoint any person without consulting the Board but such appointment would be for a period of six months and his next contention is that since the petitioner was appointed for limited period and after the expiry of the said limited period. the petitioner cannot continue, and as such the petitioner has no legal right to continue. Since the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis, there was no scope for application of Regulation 29 since he was not an employee of the Society. It comes into play only when a person is appointed within the meaning of Regulation 5. Unless Regulation 5 applies there is no scope for application of Regulation 29 read with Section 6 (N). If Regulation 29 is not applicable, there can not be any scope of application of Section 6 (N) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
4. I have heard both Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Kumar assisted by Sri O. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondents at length.
5. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis for limited period for six months. Admittedly, the petitioner had continued for more than six months with artificial break. Therefore, the petitioner could have claimed his right of continuity. But such right has to be ascertained on the basis of the law applicable thereto.
6. In the present case, the petitioner had been appointed for limited period. By virtue of the period being limited and in case of non-extension, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue and does not acquire any right which could be enforced in law.
7. It would be useful to refer to Regulation 5 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, which deals with recruitment in order to appreciate the contention of Sri Tripathi.
8. Regulation 5 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Regulations, 1975, is quoted below :
"Recruitment,--(i) Recruitment for all appointments in a Cooperative Society shall be made through the Board whether the recruitment is-
(a) direct ; or
(b) by promotion from -employees already in the service of the society ; or
(c) by taking on deputation or otherwise, person already in the service of another society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Act.
or a person in employment under a corporation or on undertaking owned or controlled by the Central or the State Government body corporate administering a local fund.
(ii) Notwithstanding anything in Clause (i) no reference to the Board shall be necessary in the following cases :
(a) When it is proposed to fill with the concurrence of the Registrar any post by means of deputation of a Government Servant, or
(b) When the Managing Committee or any other authority competent to make the appointment proposes to fill up as a stopgap measure for a period not exceeding six months a post by promotion from amongst the employees in this just below cadre on the principle of seniority, subject to the rejection of the unfit :
Provided that any appointment thus made without consultation with the board shall in every case, cease to have effect from the date on which the period of six months expires and the employees promoted to the higher post shall unless he has already been reverted to his original post within the said period of six months be deemed to have reverted from that date, to the post held by him immediately before such promotion :
Provided further that the employee appointed to the higher post under this sub-clause shall, in . no circumstances, be promoted under this sub-clause to any still higher post within the said period of six months, nor shall be appointed under this sub-clause to the same post again after his reversion under the first proviso. (iii) To facilitate the performance of the duties enjoined upon the Board under Clause (i). every Co-operative Society shall communicate to the Board by 31st December every year the approximate number of vacancies likely to arise during the course of the next calendar year by reasons of creation of new posts, retirement, deputation or otherwise.
(iv) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (i) recruitment to post in Category IV shall be made by a selection committee which-
(v) Selection made by the Selection Committee referred to in Clause (v) shall be subject to the approval of the Board and appointments shall be made after the approval of the Board.
(vi) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (iv). a cooperative society in which the appointments are to be made, shall send to the Board a requisition in the Form specified in Appendix-A at least three months before the vacancy is sought to be filled up. No change shall ordinarily to be made by the Society in the requisition after the advertisement has been sent for publication.
(vii) in making recruitment to any post the Board may require the appointing society or the society to which the appointing society is affiliated to send one of its officers to the Board and when the recruitment is to be made for a technical post or a post requiring specialised knowledge or skill, the Board may also request any appropriate institutional authority to depute a technical adviser to assist the Board."
9. The plain reading of Regulation 5 Indicates that recruitment for all appointments in a Co-operative Society shall be made through the Board. Clause (1) carves out an exception that the Committee of Management may appoint a person, that too by promotion from the lower post, without consulting the Board. But all such appointments made by promotion without consultation with the Board shall, in every case, cease to be effective on the expiry of six months. So far as appointment in class IV posts are concerned, those are to be made by the Selection Committee as provided in Clause (iv) but subject to approval by the Board as contemplated in Clause (v).
10. Thus, the Committee can make appointment by promotion without consulting the Board. But such appointment would cease on expiry of six months and the person so appointed would be deemed to have been reverted by virtue of the Proviso to Clause (ii). In case of Class IV employee, there is no scope of appointment by the Committee of Management except through selection as contemplated in Clause (iv) and that too subject to approval of the Board under Clause (v).
11. In the present case. admittedly appointment was not made in consultation with the Board. Neither it was made through selection as provided in Clause (iv) nor any approval was obtained in terms of Clause (v). No such case has been made out in the writ petition. So far as the present case is concerned, it was the appointment in Class IV post. Such appointment can only be made through selection by the Selection Committee as provided in Clause (iv) of Regulation 5. Then again by virtue of Clause (v), such appointment is subject to the approval of the Board. Clause (vi) requires a Co-operative Society, in which the appointments are to be made, to send to the Board a requisition in the Form specified in Appendix-A at least three months before the vacancy is sought to be filled up. In the present case, it is not alleged that any such requisition had been made. Thus, it appears that the procedure prescribed in Regulation 5 for appointment by Co-operative Society has not been followed and the appointment was not approved by the Board. Any appointment without consultation with or approval of the Board does not confer any right to the person so appointed and such a person does not become an employee of such society.
12. Regulation 29 of the 1975 Regulation prohibits retrenchment without approval of the Registrar that too when the business of the society is shrunk or the post is to be reduced to effect economy. The retrenchment contemplated in Regulation 29 applies to the case of an employee whose service cannot be retrenched-without the approval of the Registrar. The petitioner, as I have found, not being an employee within the meaning of Clause (xi) of Regulation 2. he cannot claim any benefit of Regulation 29. Inasmuch as an employee defined in Clause (xi) of Regulation 2 "means a person who is in whole time service of a cooperative society, but does not Include a casual worker employed on daily wage or a person in part time service of a society." Admittedly, the petitioner was on daily wage basis for a limited period. This itself indicates that the petitioner was a casual worker on daily wage basis. Therefore, he is excluded from the definition of employee as defined in Regulation 2 (xi) of the Regulation.
13. Thus, Regulation 29 cannot be attracted in the present facts in case of the petitioner.
14. The application under Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act also cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the appointment was for limited time, there was no ground for continuation beyond the period limited. Refusal of extention cannot be termed as retrenchment within the meaning of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner knew that his service was for a limited period mentioned in the appointment letter. Thus, it is not essential to give notice to him. In the present case, the petitioner had notice of the date when his employment will cease by reason of his appointment being limited by time. The requirement of notice, therefore, was redundant.
15. For all the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will. however, be no order as to costs.