U.P. CO-OP. SPG. MILLS FEDERATION LIMITED AND ANR versus RAM PRATAP YADAV AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 684 · Decided: 05-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A. U.P. CO-OP. SPG. MILLS FEDERATION LIMITED AND ANR. 
--i. 
' 
v. 
RAM PRAT AP Y ADAV AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 5, 2007 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND ALT AMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
\..._, 
Service Law: 
"' 
c 
Rules of UP. State Textile Corporation Limited: 
Secretary/General Manager of Co-operative Spinning Mill-
Termination of services for serious financial irregularities-High Court 
setting aside the order for non-compliance of Regulation 87 of 197 5 
R.egulations-HELD: Services of delinquent were governed not by 
D 1975 Regulations, but by Rules of UP. State Textile Corporation 
Limited-Since, basically spinning mills and textile mills are 
~-
complementary to each other, "spinning mills" would come under the 
description of "textile mills "-Order of High Court set aside. 
E 
WoMs and Phrases: 
"Spinning Mills "-Connotation of 
Respondent no. 1 was working as Secretary/General Manager 
of a Cooperative Spinning Mill under the appellant-U.P. Co-
)..... 
F operative Spinning Mills Federation. Pursuant to a departmental 
inquiry held against respondent no. 1 on various charges of serious 
financial irregularities, he was removed from service by order dated 
9.5.1996. The writ petition filed by respondent no.1 challenging his 
removal was allowed by the High Court holding that the appellant 
G 
did not obtain prior concurrence of the U.P. Co-operative Institutions 
-l 
Service Board, as envisaged by Regulation 87 of the U.P. Co-
operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, with 
regard to imposing of the penalty . 
... . 
In the appeal filed by the Federation, it was contended for the 
,, 
H 
684 
U.P.CO-OP.SPG.MILLSFEDERATIONLIMITEDv. RAM 685 
PRATAPYADAV 
'>--
appellant that the High Court wrongly proceeded on the basis that A 
services ofrespondent no. 1 were governed by the 1975 Regulations. 
It was submitted that by the Resolution dated 4.3.1983, services of 
the employees of the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation 
were taken out of the purview of the 1975 Regulations and were 
brought under the Rules ofU.P. Textile Corporation Limited. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The service of the respondent was governed not 
by the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 
1975 but by the Rules of the U.P. State Textile Limited. The question c 
of compliance with the provisions of the Regulations which provide 
for obtaining prior concurrence of the Board, would not arise in the 
instant case. [Para 24} [692-G-H} 
1.2. The Notification dated 16th October, 1981, issued by the 
State Government makes it quite clear that Co-operative Textile D 
Mills were to be excluded from the purview of 1975 Regulations. 
The subsequent resolution adopted by the Federation on 4th March, 
1983 made the position even more clear by resolving that till the 
Federation was able to frame its own service Rules, the Rules 
prevailing in the U.P. State Textile Corporation were to be adopted E 
as they were. Thus, the Regulations of 1975 were not to apply to 
the employees of the Federation from 4th March, 1983. This fact 
was not brought to the notice of the High Court, but having regard 
to the fact that the same was brought to the notice of this Court, the 
erroneous application of the 1975 Regulations could not be allowed 
F 
to continue. It cannot be said that the 1975 Regulations continued 
to apply to spinning mills and only co-operative textile mills had been 
excluded from the operation of the 1975 Regulations. Basically 
spinning mills and textile mills are complementary to each other and, 
therefore, "spinning mills" would also come under the description G 
of "textile mills". The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. 
However, no recovery shall be made from the respondent on account 
of his service after his reinstatement. 
[Paras 22, 23 and 25} (692-C, F, H; 693-A-B] 
H 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5279 of 
-..( 
B 
2006. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 18.01.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51699 
of2000. 
Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay for the Appellants. 
V. Shekhar, Yatish Mohan and E.C. Vidya Sagar for the 
'::::1.. 
c 
Respondents. 
. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALT AMAS KABIR, J. 1. This appeal by way of special leave is 
directed against the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2005 passed 
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. W

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.