JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---These three writ petitions filed by the Kapus Ekadhikar Karmachari Sangh, which is a registered Trade Union for and on behalf of the seasonal employees working under the Aurangabad, Nanded and Parbhani Zones of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd., (Respondent No. 2) who is the successor of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Respondent No. 3). By these petitions the petitioner Union is seeking a writ or directions in the nature of Mandamus against respondent No. 1 the State of Maharashtra to require respondent No. 2 to abide by the decision of the Government to implement the accepted recommendations of the Bhuibhar Committee Report and more particularly the recommendations under Clauses 15, 19, 23, 25, 26, 34 and 40, specially when these recommendations have been translated into an agreement dated 18-1-1984 between the petitioner Union and respondent No. 3. 2.Before we deal with the merits of the case, it would be necessary to look into the creation and working of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The State enacted the Maharashtra Raw Cotton Procurement, Processing and Marketing Act, 1971 (the Act for short) so as to enable the State Government to carry on the trade in raw cotton. The Act empowered the State Government to acquire raw cotton from the growers and other persons having stock thereof, get it ginned or pressed into bales, sell it in any form to consumers and others on behalf of the tenderers and pay them compensation. In short, the Act created a monopoly in favour of the State Government in so far as the trade in Raw Cotton is concerned. Section 42(2) of the Act, lays down that the State Government may for the purpose of purchasing, selling, storing, processing, marketing and carrying on other business in cotton on its behalf, appoint agents for the whole State or specified areas on such terms and conditions that may be mutually agreed upon between the State Government and the agent concerned. 3.The State Government appointed respondent No. 3 which is a Cooperative Society, as the Chief agent to implement the cotton monopoly procurement scheme under section 42(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 acted as the Chief agent of the State Government for procurement, processing and marketing of cotton as well. 3.The State Government appointed respondent No. 3 which is a Cooperative Society, as the Chief agent to implement the cotton monopoly procurement scheme under section 42(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 acted as the Chief agent of the State Government for procurement, processing and marketing of cotton as well. For this purpose it recruited and maintained staff consisting of those who were needed through out the year and those who were needed only during the season. The cotton trade includes procurement, processing and marketing of cotton mostly in Vidharbha, Marathwada and Khandesh region of the State and commences roughly in the first week of November and extends upto April of the next year in these regions and whereas Western Maharashtra where there is comparatively less crop of cotton, the season commences in August and ends in the month of November of the same year. The cotton scheme introduced by the State Government has three aspects namely (a) Procurement, (b) Processing and (c) Marketing. The first two activities extend over four months in a year depending upon the extent of the availability of the crop and the third stage i.e. Marketing and also the function of maintenance of accounts are spread over the year. The seasonal employees are needed only for the first two stages namely procurement and processing which last for a limited period as stated above and these employees consist of weighment clerks, heap clerks, ginning supervisors and press supervisors etc. who work at the collection centres and the processing centres. The other category are the permanent employees who are required through out the year and most of whom attend to the third activity namely the marketing and the functions of maintaining accounts etc. 4.The respondent No. 3 by and large, took over the seasonal staff from the cotton traders who were doing the same business before the Act was enacted and it appointed permanent staff. From time to time, there have been settlements between the petitioner Union and the said respondent federation. The settlement dated 11-12-1981 made an important provision for appointment of a Committee to consider the problems of the seasonal employees and the Committee was to consist of representatives each of the cotton cultivators, the federation, the State Government and the seasonal employees. From time to time, there have been settlements between the petitioner Union and the said respondent federation. The settlement dated 11-12-1981 made an important provision for appointment of a Committee to consider the problems of the seasonal employees and the Committee was to consist of representatives each of the cotton cultivators, the federation, the State Government and the seasonal employees. The Government appointed such a Committee which is popularly known as Bhuibhar Committee and matters which were referred to the said Committee were (a) the strength of the seasonal employees required to be employed in every zone considering the nature of duties, features of cotton season etc. (b) whether the technical breaks were necessary in the case of some of the seasonal employees who were then employed for 9/12 months, (c) ways and means to ensure employment for maximum period of seasonal employees, (d) the strength of the permanent i.e. perennial employees, (e) pay-scales to be granted to the seasonal employees who were to be regularised and to decide the modality of annual increments to be granted to them, (f) the need to change the then system of paying retention allowance and to suggest change in the system. The Committee submitted its report on 1-12-1983 and some of its recommendations were : (i) there should be increase in the sanctioned strength of perennial employees i.e. clerks, peons and watchmen in different zones and at different sub-zonal offices, (ii) there should be an increase in the sanctioned strength of the seasonal employees, (iii) the vacancies in Class III and IV cadres in all offices should be filled in from the seasonal employees. The Government accepted these recommendations. The federation (respondent No. 3) on its part accepted the decision of the Government in respect of the recommendations of the Bhuibhar Committee except recommendation 33. Pursuant to these decisions an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 federation on 18-1-1984. In respect of Clause 33, the agreement stated that the vacancies in the cotton department only will be filled in from amongst the seasonal employees. The agreement further provided that during the period of 5 years the Union shall not raise any demand tending to impose additional financial burden on the cotton scheme. In respect of Clause 33, the agreement stated that the vacancies in the cotton department only will be filled in from amongst the seasonal employees. The agreement further provided that during the period of 5 years the Union shall not raise any demand tending to impose additional financial burden on the cotton scheme. 5.On 31-8-1984 the respondent No. 2 was constituted for the first time as a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with the express object of taking over, from respondent No. 3 as the Chief agent of the State Government, the cotton monopoly procurement scheme. The staff of the respondent No. 3 engaged in the cotton scheme was to be taken over by the respondent No. 2. By letter dated 8th September 1984, the respondent No. 3 was informed by the Government of Maharashtra to take necessary actions for effecting transfer of the Chief agency to respondent No. 2. By letter dated 9-11-1984 the State Government informed the respondent No. 3 about the procedure to be adopted for the immediate positioning of the staff concerned and more particularly stated that (i) all staff recruited after 1-7-1972 specifically for the cotton scheme with prior approval of the Government wherever necessary or where the Government representative was associated with the selection/appointment of the candidates, should be immediately placed on deputation without payment of deputation allowance with the respondent No. 2 and their salaries and allowances were payable from the scheme as part of the commission payable to the respondent No. 2 till 1-1-1985, (ii) the respondent No. 2 would finally absorb the above categories of staff after scrutiny as on 1-1-1985 and those of the staff who were not acceptable to respondent No. 2 for some reason or the other would be retrenched by the respondent No. 2 and the costs thereof would be debited to the cotton scheme account. Accordingly, when the respondent No. 2 took over the cotton procurement scheme from respondent No. 3, fresh appointment letters were issued to the seasonal employees and the perennial employees were on deputation and subsequently came to be absorbed as its employees in pursuance of the directions of the State of Maharashtra as set out in its communication dated 9-11-1984. Accordingly, when the respondent No. 2 took over the cotton procurement scheme from respondent No. 3, fresh appointment letters were issued to the seasonal employees and the perennial employees were on deputation and subsequently came to be absorbed as its employees in pursuance of the directions of the State of Maharashtra as set out in its communication dated 9-11-1984. 6.In these three writ petitions, the petitioner Union representing the seasonal employees complained that the additional posts which are created pursuant to the Bhuibhar Committee's recommendations as accepted by the Government of Maharashtra and translated in an agreement between the petitioner union and the respondent No. 3 have not been filled in from amongst the members of the petitioner union and inspite of several reminders, very little was done by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 to fill in these vacancies. The petitioner Union is therefore, seeking directions against respondent No. 1 to require respondent No. 2 to fill in these additional permanent vacancies as per the Bhuibhar Committee Report and give them consequential benefits with effect from 1-11-82. It appears that for seeking the said benefit of permanent absorption in the employment of respondent No. 3 or respondent No. 2, the petitioner Union had also instituted complaints of Unfair Labour Practice before the Industrial Courts under section 28(1) of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 and during the pendency of these petitions, the said complaints have been withdrawn. 7.In all the three petitions, the Union has set out strength of permanent employees recommended by the Bhuibhar Committee, actual strength as on 1-11-82 and the number of vacancies to be filled in and the number of persons transferred from outside. It is specifically contended by the Union that respondent Nos. 5 to 58 have been appointed in the pay-scales without considering the claim of the petitioner-Union's members and thus the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have violated the terms of the agreement dated 18-1-1984. The respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have filed an affidavit-in-reply and opposed the petitions. So far as the strength of clerks as per the Bhuibhar Committee Report is concerned, the vacancies as on 1-11-82 and the appointments made subsequently in some of these vacant posts as well as vacancies not filled in to the extent of the strength recommended by the Bhuibhar Committee, are not in dispute. Respondent No. 3 has not appeared though served. Respondent No. 3 has not appeared though served. 8.It is the contention of respondent No. 2 that it was not a party to the agreement dated 18-1-1984 and hence, it is not bound by the said agreement and even otherwise it has not acted in breach of any of the policy decisions that were taken by the State Government while appointing it as a sole agency for cotton procurement and allied business in place of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 has further challenged the maintainability of the writ petitions mainly on the ground that being a registered Co-operative Society, the petition is not tenable against it and for directions to seek the implementation of an agreement which is a contract between the parties to the agreement, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained specially when there is an alternative remedy available to enforce such an agreement. 9.In the case of (Kulchbinder Singh v. Hardayal Singh)1, 1976(II) L.L.J. 204 , the Supreme Court in para 10 and 11 observed thus : 10. "The reason why we are not inclined to add to the enormous erudition on the point already accumulated in case law is that a close perusal of the writ petition will disclose that essentially the appellant is seeking merely to enforce an agreement entered into between the employees and the Co-operative Bank." 11. "............At its best, the writ petition seeks enforcement of a binding contract but the neat and necessary repellent is that the remedy of Article 226 in the event of a breach of a contract, by passing the normal channels of civil litigation. We are not convinced that a mere contract agreeing to a quota of promotions can be exalted into a service rule or statutory duty. What is immediately relevant is not whether the respondent is State or public authority but whether what is enforced is a statutory duty or sovereign obligation or public function of a public authority. Private law may involve a State, a statutory body, or a public body in contractual or tortious actions. What is immediately relevant is not whether the respondent is State or public authority but whether what is enforced is a statutory duty or sovereign obligation or public function of a public authority. Private law may involve a State, a statutory body, or a public body in contractual or tortious actions. But they cannot be siphoned off into the writ jurisdiction." In the case of (Bareilly Development Authority and another v. Ajay Pal Singh and others)2, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1076, the Supreme Court observed that no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple. In a more recent judgment in the case of (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. another v. Dolly Das)3, J.T. 1999(3) S.C. 61, the Apex Court held that in the absence of constitutional or statutory rights being involved, a writ proceeding would not lie to enforce contractual obligations even if it is sought to be enforced against the State, but if the facts pleaded before the Court are of such a nature which do not involve any complicated question of fact needing elaborate investigation of the same, the High Court could also exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matter. 10.In the case of (State Bank of India and others v. Rajajah M. and others)4, 1998(II) L.L.J. 568 a specific issue was raised before a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable for directions against the State, a statutory body or a public body for implementation of a settlement signed under section 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The High Court agreed that in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court would not embark upon an enquiry with regard to the implementation or otherwise of the settlements, which depends upon the facts to be adduced on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed before it and not on the basis of affidavits in writ proceedings and when there is an effective alternative remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and when the dispute between the parties is within the ambit and scope of the Act and the provisions which are intended for investigation and settlements of industrial disputes between the parties, the writ proceedings are not maintainable. 11.As these petitions have been admitted in the year 1986 and 1987 and there is nothing to show that the issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions was left open to be decided at the time of final decision, we deem it appropriate that we proceed to decide the writ petitions on their own merits leaving open the issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, for the time being. 12.There is no dispute that the respondent No. 2 is not a party to the agreement dated 18-1-1984, signed between the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner Union. However as it is clear from the documents brought on record that the Government of Maharashtra appointed respondent No. 2 as the successor to respondent No. 3 for the cotton procurement scheme and all the activities related thereto under the provisions of the Act and therefore, the respondent No. 2 would be bound by the contractual obligations between the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner Union. We must also note that notwithstanding the agreement dated 18-1-1984, the respondent No. 1 the State of Maharashtra vide its letter dated 9-11-1984 addressed to respondent No. 3 made it clear that all staff recruited after 1-7-1972 by respondent No. 3 would finally be absorbed after scrutiny as on 1-1-1985 by the respondent No. 2 and those of the staff members who were not acceptable to respondent No. 2 for some reason or the other, would have to be retrenched by respondent No. 3. This indicates that the respondent No. 2 had the opportunity to retrench the surplus staff who was otherwise transferred from the rolls of respondent No. 3 for the cotton procurement scheme. This indicates that the respondent No. 2 had the opportunity to retrench the surplus staff who was otherwise transferred from the rolls of respondent No. 3 for the cotton procurement scheme. 13.It would be pertinent to refer to Clause 24 of the Bhuibhar Committee report and the recommendations in this Clause are very material for deciding these petitions. The said Clause reads : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lferhP;k f'ykjl'kklukpk vgokGkrhy fu.kZ; d{ksr ekst.kkjs f'dkj dzekad- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ++^^24foHkkfXk; vkf.k dk;kZY;kP;k la?kkP;k f'dkjl fLodkj.;kr lsod ;a=.ks e/;s th ok< lqpfo.;kr;sr vkgs- eWustesaV vkfy vkgs rh ok< nSufnu dkedktdUlyVaVdMwu IkzFkfed y{kkr ?ksÅu lqpfoysyh vkgs ijarqvgoky ;srkp R;koj Ikw.kZ ;k fo"k;koj Qkj l[kksy vH;klkph Nkuuh d#u dk;Zokgh xjt vlY;keqGs rsFkhy dkekpk 'kkL= d[;kr ;koh- 'kq) vHk;kl d#u rsFks lsod ;a=.kk vlkoh gs lqpfo.;kps dke ,dk/kk eWustesaV dUlyVaV dMs lksiokos- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The State Government while accepting the said recommendations stated that on receipt of the preliminary report from a management consultant necessary action be taken after the scrutiny of the said report for filling in the additional posts recommended by the said Committee. The provisions of this Clause 24 imply undoubtedly that the recommendations made by the Committee and which were translated in the settlement between the petitioner Union and respondent No. 3 were to be implemented subject to the report which was expected to be submitted by a management consultant after undertaking a thorough study of the staff requirement in the zonal as well as sub-zonal offices and the recommendations of the Committee were not meant to be implemented straightway. Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 24 of the Committee Report, the respondent No. 2 had appointed M/s Kirloskar Consultants for undertaking a study regarding staff requirement and on completion of the said study the consultancy firm has submitted its report which has been brought on record by the respondent No. 2. As per the said report the zonewise staff position for Aurangabad, Parbhani and Nanded zones as on 15-7-1998 could be reported in the following chart. : THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. COTTON GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE, NAGPUR. THE ZONEWISE STAFF POSITION AS ON 15-7-1998 AS PER KIRLOSKAR PATTERN. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. No. Name of CadreAURANGABADPARBHANINANDED ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sanc- At pre- Sanc- At pre-Sanc- At pre- tioned senttioned senttioned sent Stren- Work- Stren- Work-Stren- Work- gth ing gth inggth ing. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Senior Clerk28 6227 5827 45 2. Junior Clerk 8 --09 --7 -- 3. HEAD OFFICE, NAGPUR. THE ZONEWISE STAFF POSITION AS ON 15-7-1998 AS PER KIRLOSKAR PATTERN. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. No. Name of CadreAURANGABADPARBHANINANDED ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sanc- At pre- Sanc- At pre-Sanc- At pre- tioned senttioned senttioned sent Stren- Work- Stren- Work-Stren- Work- gth ing gth inggth ing. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Senior Clerk28 6227 5827 45 2. Junior Clerk 8 --09 --7 -- 3. Inward/Out1 --01 --1 -- ward Clerk 4. Godown 16 --15 --7 -- Clerk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total53 62 52 5842 45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above stated figures indicated that under the Aurangabad and Nanded zones there are surplus staff and under the Parbhani zone, there is deficiency of six staff members. The respondent No. 2 has also filed a statement regarding the appointments of respondent Nos. 5 to 58 alongwith an additional affidavit and it is clear that most of these appointments have been done in the year 1984 to 1986 and these appointments are made either in place of vacancies available and/or arising on account of resignation or demise while in service by transferring permanent employees from amongst the staff categories who were working in other zones and perhaps were found surplus in such zones. There is nothing in the report of the Bhuibhar Committee or in the agreement which has been relied upon, to suggest that staff members who were otherwise found to be surplus or found to be suitable for promotions in other zones could not be transferred against the existing vacancies in the zones under considerations i.e. Aurangabad, Parbhani and Nanded. The respondent No. 2 is a State level employer and employment under such a society is certainly transferable anywhere in the State of Maharashtra. Instead of retrenching surplus staff from other zones, if the respondent No. 2 has taken steps to absorb such surplus staff in the existing vacancies in other zones, such an action must be lauded instead of finding fault with it. The respondent No. 2 in its affidavit has, in unambiguous words, stated that it has not recruited any permanent staff member from outside i.e. by direct recruitment from the open market and it has not violated any term of the settlement dated 18-1-1984 regarding the procedure to be followed for such appointments on permanent basis. There is nothing on record to disbelieve this statement made by the respondent No. 2. There is nothing on record to disbelieve this statement made by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner Union could not dispute the fact that the appointments made against the permanent vacancies by respondent No. 2 have been from amongst its members and none of the respondents from respondents Nos. 5 to 58 are the persons who have been recruited from the open market. We do not find any illegality or any breach of the settlement dated 18-1-1984 committed by the respondents Nos. 2 or 3 in the appointments of respondents Nos. 5 to 58 and the petitioner union does not have a vested right to seek directions against the respondent No. 2 requiring it to appoint its members on the basis of Bhuibhar Committee report on permanent vacancies without taking into consideration the provisions of Clause 24 of the said report which provisions have given a freedom to respondent No. 2 to restudy its staffing requirement afresh by appointing a management consultant and follow the same. 14.By way of interim orders, this Court had directed respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to continue the members of the petitioner union, whose names appear in the list at Annexure 'A', in service during the pendency of these writ petitions. We have noted that these 56 persons were seasonal employees and continuation of such employees in the seasonal employment is subject to the Bhuibhar Committee Report and the agreement dated 18-1-1984. In addition, the respondent No. 2 has the freedom to limit the strength of seasonal employees depending on its requirement which may vary from season to season. It would not be therefore, legal and proper for this Court to continue such directions while disposing of the petitions. In case the union has reasons to believe that any seasonal employee/employees is/are not retained in a particular season, it has a remedy to approach the Industrial Court against the respondent No. 2 for seeking to implement the settlement. Even the petitioner union has also an option or scope for entering into fresh agreements with respondent No. 2 if it is so desired and agreed by and between the parties. 14-A.For the above stated reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed and interim orders are vacated. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. 15.Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners made an oral application for continuation of the stay order granted by this Court earlier. 14-A.For the above stated reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed and interim orders are vacated. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. 15.Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners made an oral application for continuation of the stay order granted by this Court earlier. We have clarified in our judgment regarding the remedy available to the petitioner union, in case any of the seasonal employees are discontinued and after assessing such a remedy, we have directed the stay order to be vacated. We therefore, feel that there is no justification in continuing the interim order any more. Oral application is therefore rejected. Petitions dismissed. -----