JUDGMENT Hari Singh, Member.—Ms. Himachali Devi and 12 other applicants have been working as Salesmen and Clerks etc. in Mandi District Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation, Respondent No. 1, from 1972 onwards. Respondent No I is presently suffering financial losses besides reduction of business consequent upon transfer of some of its activities to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, H. P. State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Ltd. and H, P. State Civil Supplies Corporation respectively. The applicants apprehend termination of their services. Through this application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 they have prayed for restraining Respondent No. 1 from terminating their services besides making a prayer for regularisation of services of applicants No. 13. In the alteinative a prayer has been made to direct respondents to give employment to the applicants in their Government Departments and public undertakings etc, 2. Skipping superfluities the material facts relevant for disposal of this application briefly stated are that Respondent No, 1, had been undertaking multifarious activities like procurement and sale of essential commodities amongst the public and procurement and distribution of fertilizer amongst the farmers and the State of Himachal Pradesh had advanced a grant of about Rs. 22 lakhs to this federation upto June 30, 1991 to carry out its activities. After the establishment of H. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation in early 1980s, the procurement and supply of essential commodities were transferred to this Corporation Likewise the procurement and distribution of fertilizers amongst agriculturists was entrusted to respondent No, 2 as a matter of policy by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thus the primary business undertaken by respondent No. 1 came to be reduced tremendously and respondent No 1 started incurring losses from year to year. During the period February 1991 to July 1991 it sustained a net loss of Rs. 3.95 lakhs and accumulated losses were to the extent of Rs. 22 51 lakhs. Requests were made by Respondent No 1 to the State Government to allocate additional business to it like Petrol Pumps, distribution of L. P. Gas etc. or to re-entrust the activities withdrawn from it in the recent years but without any fruitful results. After the filing of this application, there have been certain other developments and the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh has placed respondent No. 1 under dissolution vide order dated November 5, 1992. or to re-entrust the activities withdrawn from it in the recent years but without any fruitful results. After the filing of this application, there have been certain other developments and the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh has placed respondent No. 1 under dissolution vide order dated November 5, 1992. In these circumstances, the applicants apprehended termination of their services and on July 31, 1991 an ad interim injunction was issued by this Tribunal restraining the respondents from terminating the employment of the applicants and to maintain status quo qua them and in these circumstances, respondent No. 1 has not been able to get rid of them. 3. A preliminary objection has been taken by Respondent No. 4, the State of Himachal Pradesh, that the service matters of the employees of the Co-operative Societies, like Respondent No. .1 registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 cannot be adjudicated upon by this Tribunal in view of the definition of Society provided under the Administrative Tribunals Act. We are not impressed with this objection of the State Government because out of a total investment of about 23 lakhs upto June 30, 1991 a sum of Rs. 21.78 lakhs was invested by the State Government alone. Thus besides controlling more than 90% Share Capital of this Federation the Managing Director of this Federation has been appointed by the State Government under section 35-B of the H. P Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 who is also ex officio member of the Board Not only this the State Government has been appointing three members on the board of management of this Federation. In these circumstances, respondent No. 1 is a body controlled and managed under the directions of the State Government. In any case, respondent No. I appears to be an instrumentality of the State Government or atleast a Local Body, over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction, in service matters, within the ambit of section 15 (3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, read with notifications dated August 28, 1986 and September 3, 1986 issued by the Department of Personnel, State of Himachal Pradesh, The objection of Respondent No. 4, is therefore, overruled. The case of respondent No. 1 is that following a change in the State policy, the business of distribution and procurement of essential commodities and fertilizers pertaining to Mandi District earlier being handled by this respondent has been taken away from the replying respondent following a change in the State policy and assigned to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the result that practically the replying respondent has been left with no work and most of the staff has been rendered surplus. Respondent No. 2 has averred in its reply that there is no privity of contract between the applicant and replying respondent and the replying respondent is facing overstating and had terminated the services of its own employees and that no fresh work has been transferred from Respondent No, 1 to this respondent. Respondent No. 3 has also filed a separate reply. 4. During arguments, office order dated November 5, 1992 was produced before us on behalf of Respondent No. 1 showing that presently it is undergoing liquidation. This position was accepted by the various counsel of the parties appearing on their behalf. From the reply of respondent No. 4 it is apparent that respondent No. 1 has been undergoing colossal financial losses and during the period February to July 1991 there has been loss of Rs. 3.95 lakhs and the cumulative loss of respondent No. 1 has reached to the extent of Rs. 22.51 lakhs From the averments of the parties we are convinced that there is hardly any likelihood of any improvement in the financial structure of respondent No. 1 in the near future and being seized of this situation, the State Government has already placed the respondent Federation under liquidation, vide orders dated November 5, 1992 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Respondent No. 1 has stated in its reply that its Board of Directors had been striving hard and doing their utmost to get the business transferred from it to respondent Nos. Respondent No. 1 has stated in its reply that its Board of Directors had been striving hard and doing their utmost to get the business transferred from it to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 restored back, This respondent also appears to have been requesting the State Government for adjustment of the surplus staff elsewhere since such staff could not be kept on its rolls because of huge financial loss consequent upon reduction of business This is amply illustrated from letter dated April 12, 1989 from the Secretary (F and S) Government of Himachal Pradesh to various authorities relevant portion of which reads as under:— Subject: Adjustment of staff of the District Federations and other Co-operative Institutions. I am directed to say that some of the Co-operative District Federations and other Co-operative Institutions are over-burdened with surplus staff. This alone has increased their financial instability In order to solve this problem, it has been decided by the Government that wherever Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation needs recruitment of new staff they should meet their requirement as far as possible, under rules out of the surplus staff available with the co-operative institutions. You are therefore requested that necessary action may please be taken in the matter under intimation to this Department. 5. The State of Himachal Pradesh appears to be aware about the continuous losses which various co-operative societies in Himachal Pradesh, including respondent No. 1, had been undergoing from time to time and has been requesting the Cooperative Societies at various levels to adjust surplus staff of other Societies, like Respondent No, I. This is demonstrated from office order dated Nil April 1992, Annexure P, from Registrar Co-operative Societies issued under Rule 52 of H. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971 to various authorities, relevant portion of which reads as under :— "It shall be necessary for the co-operative societies which wants to appoint new employees that they should keep in touch with the office of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies of the area to secure list of candidates for suitable post before formulating their appointment procedure so that such candidates are given priority in their selection. All Deputy Registrars shall function as co-ordinating officers in this respect and shall provide list to the society as required by it. " 6. All Deputy Registrars shall function as co-ordinating officers in this respect and shall provide list to the society as required by it. " 6. Shri L.C. Kapoor, the learned Counsel for the applicants submits that he would not press his claim for continuous employment of the applicants under Respondent No, 1 and that he would be satisfied if directions were given to the State Government to get absorbed the applicants in alternate jobs under Government or in Public Sector Undertakings on the analogy of the employees rendered surplus in various Municipal Committees in the State of Himachal Pradesh consequent upon the abolition of octroi as per directions dated March 3, 1983, Annexure "N", issued by the Secretary (LSG) Government of Himachal Pradesh The learned Counsel for both the parties agreed during the course of arguments that the State Government, being a model employer, should help in getting the applicants absorbed in Government Departments or Public Sector Undertakings, including respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to whom some of the activities of respondent No, 1 appear to have been transferred. 7. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 have opposed this application on the ground that the services of the applicants had not been terminated till the filing of this application and the application, thus being premature, was liable to be dismissed in limine. We need not attach much importance to this hypertechnical averment since what is involved is humanitarian approach to tackle the problem of unemployment. Keeping the persistent recurring loss of Respondent No, 1 in view and the fact that presently liquidation proceedings are under hand, the applicants are likely to be removed from service any time. As a matter of fact, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. I frankly conceded that but for the interim relief (injunction) of this Tribunal dated July 31, 1991 some of the employees might have been shown the door by now. Whereas respondent No. 1 will be at liberty to terminate the services of its surplus employees, in accordance with law, it will be expedient in the interest of justice to issue directions to Respondent No. 4 to explore the feasibility of absorbing the surplus employees of Respondent No 1, including the 13 applicants, in the equivalent jobs in the State Government or in any one of its Public Sector Undertakings/Local Bodies. Though it has been averred on behalf of Respondent No. 4 that the State Government has no power to direct any of its Corporation or Society to absorb the applicants in its service yet in view of the fact that in every Five Year Plan, right from 1952 onwards, stress has been laid on creation of more and more employment, the applicants need not be rendered unemployed even if they are surplus to the requirement of Respondent No. 1 and the State Government, in a Welfare State, is expected to look after the welfare of its citizens and not to render people already in employment as unemployed. The State Government is a model employer and some of the applicants have put in over 20 years service under Respondent No 1 and are thus sufficiently experienced for being absorbed elsewhere. The two communications, dated April 12, 1989 and Nil April 1992 referred to above amply demonstrate that the State Government is alive about this human problem of surplus staff, with various Co-operative Societies, and now the State Government cannot be allowed to wriggle out of their earlier stand and state that no directions can be issued to various Corporations for absorption of surplus staff like the applicants. On the request of Respondent No, 1, the State Government has been issuing instructions to various authorities under its control to absorb such employees under them. Ciero said ages ago "Good of the people is the chief law". Most of the applicants are already overage for getting employment, de novo, elsewhere nor it may be humanly possible for them to secure any job by their own efforts howsoever sincerely they may try, to get jobs elsewhere. In such a situation the State Government must come to their succour and provide them employment preferably under Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or other Government Departments and Public Undertakings, wherever vacancies exist or may be available during next six months. The applicants shall be adjusted in such posts for which they may be eligible keeping their educational qualifications and experience in view relaxing the age in every case as has been done by the Government while absorbing the surplus staff of Octroi wing of various Municipal Committees in the State of Himachal Pradesh, We place reliance on the observation of the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5940/92 titled K P. Co-operative Marketing Cons. Workers Union and others v. H. P. Co-op. Maktg. Consumer and another; in which on May 15, 1^92 the following directions had been issued: "......The State of Himachal Pradesh may consider the question of granting alternative jobs if it is feasible and report to this Court on the returnable date." 8. In view of above it will be expedient, and in the interest of justice to dispose of this application with following directions:— (i) Respondent No. 4 is directed to explore the feasibility of providing alternative employment to the applicants in Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings, semi-autonomous bodies and other development projects under execution or likely to be executed in the near future, preferably under Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. (ii) The Chief Secretary will identify the potential employer(s) and make allocation of the applicants to such employer(s) for absorption within a period of six months from the receipt of the copy of this order and the potential employers shall employ the applicants within next three months. In the event of there being no post supernumerary posts may be created for them. (iii) The terms and conditions for absorption of the applicants elsewhere will be determined and settled by the Chief Secretary. (iv) The respondent No. shall make payment of salary and allowances to the applicants as may be admissible upto June 30, 1993, as early as possible and in no case later than September 30, 1993. and we order accordingly. It is clarified that Respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to terminate the services of the surplus staff, if any, in accordance with law. The stay granted on July 31, 1991 shall stand vacated w. e. f. June 30, 1993. No order as to costs. Ordered with directions.