JUDGMENT B.D. Agrawal and D.S. Sinha, JJ. - The petitioner was employed by Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Morna, district Muzaffarnagar, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, on January 1, 1985, as Mill House Fitter-II in the grade of Rs. 356 - 421 per mensem. The services of the petitioner, in addition to 33 other workmen, were terminated on 24th September, 1985, after show cause notice in sequence to certain violent altercation which took place in the mill premises on 23rd August, 1985. The petitioner applied on 4th January, 1986, seeking rescission of the order of termination and promised good behaviour in the future. Whereupon he was reinstated on the same date, on 1st July, 1986, the General Manager (D.S. Shukla) approached the U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Federation') and Sought transfer of the petitioner on disciplinary grounds. The Joint Managing Dire.tor, Federation passed the impugned order dated 3rd July 1986, transferring the petitioner to the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Poo Ranpur, district Pilibhit, and relieved him of the charge on 5th July, 1986. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. We have heard Sri Shyam Narain, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Malviya, appearing on the respondents' side. Affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel on both side we proceed to decide the petition finally at this stage. 3. Dispute does not exist in regard to certain material facts in this case. The Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, which employed the petitioner, as well as the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, to which the petitioner is transferred, are both Co-operative societies registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The Federation is an apex society as specified in Section 2 (a-4) (7) of the Act. Both the Co-operative societies are affiliated to the Federation Section 123 (1) empowers the State Government to constitute or recognise Co-operative Federal Authority for the supervision of Co-operative societies. The State Government has set up the Federation in exercise of the powers conferred under this provision and by notification dated 16th February 1976, Government has given recognition to the Federation as a Co-operative Federal Authority to supervise Co-operative Sugar Mills. The State Government has set up the Federation in exercise of the powers conferred under this provision and by notification dated 16th February 1976, Government has given recognition to the Federation as a Co-operative Federal Authority to supervise Co-operative Sugar Mills. The Federation, it is not in dispute, is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (vide Parmeshwar Dayal Shukla v. Deputy Registrar. Co-operative Societies, U.P., 1982 Lab IC 1712 (DB). Under Section 122 (I) read with Rule 389 - A of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, the State Government has also constituted the Cooperative Institutional Service Board (for short' the Board') for the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of Co-operative societies. The Board has framed the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, with the approval of the State Government as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 122. These Regulations, however, have no application in so far as the employees of the Co-operative Sugar Mills are concerned for the reason, which, too, is not disputed before us that by notification dated 7th February. 1973, the State Government has expressly excluded the Federation from the purview of the Board and by another notification dated 6th August, 1977, the State Government has excluded the Co-operative CaN.S.gar Factories also from the purview of the Board. 4. The crux of the dispute is whether the power to transfer a workman employed by a particular Co-operative Sugar Mills to another Co-operative sugar mills vests in the Federation. Tire order dated 3rd July, 1986, made by the Joint Managing Director, Federation, in the instant case, does not specify the source of power or authority, but this would be little consequence provided it can be made out otherwise that the authority or the power exists. In the two counter affidavits, filed on behalf of the Federation, the sources of power, relied upon in this connection, are two - fold:- (i) Bye-law 5 (b) of the Federation ; (ii) Notification of the State Government under Section 3 (b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dated 15th July, 1978, read with the terms of appointment of the petitioner dated 1st January, 1985. 5. Sri Malviya, learned counsel for the respondents invited a reference also to the Bye-laws framed by the Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited like other sugar-cane factories placed in the Co-operative sector. 5. Sri Malviya, learned counsel for the respondents invited a reference also to the Bye-laws framed by the Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited like other sugar-cane factories placed in the Co-operative sector. Bye-laws 7,7-B provide that the recruitment of the employees shall be on the staffing pattern adopted by the Federation. Bye-law 66 (ta) says that the secretary shall have among his powers and duties the appointment of the workmen and the ministerial stall'. We could not be referred to any provision in these Bye-laws pertaining to the transfer of a workman employed in the sugar mill concerned to another Co-operative sugar unit. It is undisputed moreover that the petitioner is not covered under the centralised services created in pursuance of the provision made in Section 122 - A of the Act. 6. Taking up Bye-law 5 (b) of the Federation, the same extracted in the counter affidavit filed for the Federation, reads as under "In pursuance of the objects stated in Bye-law 4, the Federation may either by itself or with advice or assistance or in consultation with the National Federation of Co-operative Sugar Factories Ltd. New Delhi. (a) ***** (b) Recruit, train, appoint, transfer, suspend, dismiss, censure, line or otherwise punish, the employees of the member Co-operative sugar factories, exercise disciplinary control under regulations framed regarding the terms and conditions of their service in accordance with Section 121 or 122 of the Act and Subject to the provisions contained in Section 70 settlement of disputes between such employees and the member factories with the approval of the State Government." 7. The power exercisable under this Bye-law, as Sri Shyam Narain the petitioner's learned counsel rightly urged, is to be under Regulations framed regarding the terms and conditions of service of the employees in accordance with Section 121 or 122 of the Act. We, therefore, have necessarily to turn to Regulations, if any. Reference made is n the U. F. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Service Rules, 1976 framed by the Registrar in exercise of powers under Section 121 (1) of the Act. Rule 3 thereof provides that these rules shall apply to the employees of the Federation. Assuming, on being read along Side with Bye-laws (5) reproduced above. Reference made is n the U. F. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Service Rules, 1976 framed by the Registrar in exercise of powers under Section 121 (1) of the Act. Rule 3 thereof provides that these rules shall apply to the employees of the Federation. Assuming, on being read along Side with Bye-laws (5) reproduced above. That these Rules 1976 are applicable as well in relation to the employees of the constituent units of the Federation, the fact remains that none of the provisions contained in these Rules, 1976, pertains to the transfer of an employee from one Co-operative sugar mills to another affiliated to the Federation. The object behind giving recognition to the authority of the Federation under Section 123 (1) by the State Government undoubtedly is that there may be supervision of Co-operative societies exercised by the Federation, but there may be no denying that the supervision has to be exercised in conformity with the regulations framed by or under the authority of the Federation or the rules drawn under Section 121 (I) by the Registrar. We are not referred to any rule or regulation for that matter, which may envisage answer of a workman from one Co-operative sugar factory to another by or under the authority of the Federation. The general supervision envisaged in Section 23 (1) over the affairs of the Co-operative societies may be can flied out by the Federation in accordance with the regulations, Bye-laws or the rules relevant on the subject. In the absence of anything therein providing for transfer, as is resorted in the present case it may not be claimed that the power in this respect is available to the Federation. The Bye-laws of the Federation themselves insist upon the regulations being observed inasmuch as it provide "under regulations framed regarding the terms and conditions of their service." 8. As far the notification under Section 3 (b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 15th July, 1982, this is in the nature of an emergency provision. The term thereof was to expire on 31st December, 1983. We have been informed for the respondent;; that the term stands extended. The preamble of this notification recites that this was drawn with the object to meet the filling of the posts falling vacant due to retirement of workman employed in sugar industry or for any other reason. The term thereof was to expire on 31st December, 1983. We have been informed for the respondent;; that the term stands extended. The preamble of this notification recites that this was drawn with the object to meet the filling of the posts falling vacant due to retirement of workman employed in sugar industry or for any other reason. Clause (1) provides accordingly that the workmen rendered surplus as result of modernisation or rationalisation shall not be retrenched, but instead a surplus pool shah be created. Clause (2) says that if a post in the mill is vacant or falls vacant the same shall, from first of all, be filled in from the surplus pool. In case it is not possible, the resultant vacant Shall be filled in by the heir of the workman in case he is suitable for appointments to such a post. Clause (3) says that if an unskilled workman retires from service and no unskilled workman is available in the surplus pool, such vacant post shall be offered to the heir of the retired workman provided he is fit for the post. Then comes clause (4), upon which the respondent's learned counsel relies, which says :- "A workman employed in any Sugar factory in the Co-operative Sector, can be transferred to any other sugar factory in the same sector provided the consent of tire workman is obtained prior to his transfer." 9. From the text of the notification and the object underlying it is manifestly clear that this is designed to fill in the posts falling vacant due to the retirement of workman employed n sugar factory or for any other reason. There is the mode provided and this is inclusive also of transfer from one unit to another but with the rider that this may take place only with the consent of the workman concerned obtained prior to the transfer. In the instant case, as is revealed from the counter affidavits filed for the respondents themselves, the transfer directed of petitioner is in pith and Substance by way of a disciplinary measure. In the instant case, as is revealed from the counter affidavits filed for the respondents themselves, the transfer directed of petitioner is in pith and Substance by way of a disciplinary measure. Paragraph 5 of the counter - affidavit, filed by D.P. Singh for the Federation, recites in this connection that Sri D.C. Shukla, the General Manager/Secretary of the Mills, after taking over charge, found that group leaders of the two warring groups are the real menace to the maintenance of peace and harmony in the mill premises and proceeds to say :- "Consequently on 1-7-1986 the approached U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation and requested personally that some of such persons who were getting the feeling of group ism intensified in the mill may be transferred o some other mill so that there may not be any possibility of further escalation of tension in the mill at any point of time." 10. Evidently the notification referred to above does not envisage a transfer made in this background. The relevant clause, moreover, does not indicate as to who is the authority given the power to direct such transfer. The notification nowhere says expressly or by necessary implication that this authority is conferred on the Federation. Further the consent of the workman obtained prior to the transfer is a necessary ingredient. It was urged for the respondents that clause (9) of the Office Memorandum dated 1st Jan nary, 1985, (Annexure-I) under which the petitioner was appointed, states that his services may be transferred to any of the Co-operative sugar mills in the State, f his, it is argued, be taken to be the consent of the petitioner for the purpose in hand. We are unable to agree. In the context the consent required under clause (4) of the notification is specific in reference to the particular assignment or the posting which is being made in relation to the workman concerned. it is neither alleged nor shown that the petitioner was ever asked whether he would be riling to proceed to join the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Pooranpur, district Pilibhit. The petitioner has remained in employment in district Muzaffarnagar and it is not the case of the respondents that the hardship or the difficulties likely to be faced by him on being Shifted to district Pilibhit were taken into account before the transfer was directed. The petitioner has remained in employment in district Muzaffarnagar and it is not the case of the respondents that the hardship or the difficulties likely to be faced by him on being Shifted to district Pilibhit were taken into account before the transfer was directed. The term contained in the letter of appointment, which is general in its contents, may not be treated as amounting to consent of the workman to the transfer in question obtained prior to the impugned order being passed. This notification may not also, therefore, avail the respondents in this behalf. 11. In short, thus, the petitioner is a workman under the employment of a Co-operative sugar factory, which is a body corporate and as such a legal entity in itself. The petitioner is not a member of the centralised services. The Mill is affiliated no doubt to the Federation, but the Rules or Regulations of the Federation do not provide for transfer of a workman from any Sugar factory to another and in this manner a change being brought about relating to the employer without the workman being a consenting party to it nor is the notification under Section 3 (b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, attracted to the facts thereof. 12. In Samayike Ganna Karamchari Singh and others v. Cane Commissioner U.P. Lucknow and others, 1980 (40) FLR 121 a Division Bench of this Court took the view that apart from the employees, who belong to centralised services contemplated by Section 122-A it was not legally possible to transfer the employees of one Co-operative society to the employment of another Co-operative society. The Bench observed :- "An analysis of Sections 122 and 122-A of the Act would indicate that the Legislature envisages framing of Regulation for the control of employees of Co-operative Societies and also for the control of services common to Co-operative societies. As stated earlier, each Co-operative society is a unit by itself and has an independent existence as distinct from other Co-operative societies. In our opinion, the Regulations control the terms and conditions of the employment in Case Co-operative Societies Each cane Co-operative Society is a unit by itself and it can transfer its employees within the region over which the Society has jurisdiction. In our opinion, the Regulations control the terms and conditions of the employment in Case Co-operative Societies Each cane Co-operative Society is a unit by itself and it can transfer its employees within the region over which the Society has jurisdiction. But under the Regulations, the employee of one Cane Co-operative Society cannot be transferred to another Co-operative society unless the employee belongs to a centralised service such as is contemplated by Section 122-A of the Act. It is not disputed that the seasonal employees in question do not belong to a centralised service. If the petitioners do not belong to a centralised service, the field of their employment would be the limits within which the particular Cane Co-operative Society exercises its jurisdiction. 13. This was followed by another Division Bench, as appearing from the unreported decision dated 3rd April, 1979, in Writ Petition No. 9613 of 1978 (Rajpal Singh and another v. District Cane Service Authority, Meerut and others and other connected petitions), cited by Sri Shy am Narain before us. We are in respectful agreement with this view for reasons discussed above. 14. The counsel for the petitioner submitted also that the order impugned transferring the petitioner to another unit is discriminatory and it has been passed on mala fide considerations. It was urged that the then General Manager, namely, Bhumeshwar Singh or the workmen enjoying his patronage have not been dealt with nor any action taken against them, but that the petitioner aN.S.me others of the other group were singled out. Learned counsel in this connection proceeded to refer to the decisions reported in Sengara Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1984 SC 1494 and Dr. Satish Kumar Agrawal and others v. Principal and General Superintendent S.N. Medical College and Hospital ere, AIR 1985 Alld 306. We do not find necessary to enter into this aspect of the controversy keeping in mind the view we have taken relating to the power of transfer on the facts hereof. 15. For the discussion made in the above petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 3rd July, 1986/5th July, 1986, passed by the Joint Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Limited (Annexures III and IV) are set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs.