JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri K.P. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri G.D. Mishra who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a permanent employee on the post of Dairyman in the State Dugdh Parishad Dugdhshala Vikas, Mirzapur and since then he has been regularly working. His wages at the time of appointment was about Rs. 1200/- per month and currently the wages are Rs. 7735/- per month and that under orders of the D.D.O. Mirzapur and Vikas Adhikari the daily activity of collecting and selling the milk as stopped but the petitioner was continued in employment having been retained for looking after some essential works. 3. It is stated that the activities collection and distribution of milk in the Dugdhshala Mirzapur started again and duties of the Dairyman were again assigned to the petitioner by order dated 20.6.2005 issued by the Deputy Dugdhshala Vikas Adhikari Mirzapur on 20.6.2005. However, during the aforesaid period he was paid some amount towards part of wages for which he made representations for payment of the back wages as well as full wages on 10.9.2007, 30.10.2007 and 5.11.2007. 4. It is also stated that he was never paid his full wages as sometimes he was paid a thousand rupees or two thousand rupees as advance. 5. It is further stated that due to non-payment of his wages the petitioner approached the Secretary of the Dughd Vikas Parishad and reply has been given to him by State Backward Commission admitting that the payment of wages has not been made to him. Though he has his duty almost 12 hours everyday. 6. Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to full wages as there was no severance of relationship of master and servant when the activities of the respondent-Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh were temporarily stopped. According to him non-payment of full salary is not only hit by Article 21 but is also hit by Article 23 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is urged by him that services of the petitioner had not been terminated during the period when some of the activities the respondents’ unit at Mirzapur remained suspended. According to him non-payment of full salary is not only hit by Article 21 but is also hit by Article 23 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is urged by him that services of the petitioner had not been terminated during the period when some of the activities the respondents’ unit at Mirzapur remained suspended. The petitioner continued to be engaged in other works of the Unit and that the manner in which the respondents have not paid the wages to the petitioner amounts to taking of (Begar) which is hit by Article 23 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is also urged that both the units of Dugdha Parishad and Milk Federation or Cooperative Societies are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as has been held by Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sahan Rai v. Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak and another, hence the case of the petitioner is amenable to writ jurisdiction hence the petitioner can get the constitutional obligations enforced by approaching the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Sri G.D. Mishra, counsel for respondents relying upon para 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit has submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the State Government does not have 100% share in Dugdh Sangh, Mirzapur and further submitted that out of due salary Rs. 4,41,221/-. The petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 2,13,590/-. Thus only a sum of Rs. 2,27,631 could not be paid to him. 10. Learned counsel for respondents further urged that the petitioner has a remedy of arbitration proceedings in respect of salary under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 which is a complete code in itself. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Madan Lal Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (113) FLR 505, wherein the Court has held that “Parag Dairy” Aligarh Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. is not State with the meaning under Article 12 of the Constitution, therefore, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for relief of post retiral benefits as the dispute pertaining to service matters between an employee and private employer does not involve public function or discharge of public duty. 11. 11. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of records as well as averments made in the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavits it is apparent that the respondents have admitted that petitioner has not been paid salary due to ‘lack of funds’. 12. In para 12 of the counter affidavit it is further averred that : “For making of payment for rest of the amount, a letter has been written to the Milk Commissioner as well as Additional Milk Commissioner demanding the financial assistance so that rest of the money of the petitioner may be paid.” 13. It is apparent that the services of the petitioner had not been terminated at any point of time and the relationship of master and servant continued to exist therefore, respondents are liable to pay wages to him and non-payment of wages on the ground that the unit is facing loss, is in the nature of ‘begar’ and hit by Article 23 of the Constitution of India therefore, is not acceptable. Furthermore, since the amount of salary due to the petitioner has been admitted by the respondents, it would not be in the interest of justice to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 as there is no dispute regarding payment of dues. 14. For the reasons stated above and in the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay total admitted amount of salary along with 5% simple interest to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Since the Unit is said to be suffering loss, the respondents in the alternative may pay one third of the amount due with interest aforesaid, each month for three months in equal instalments in addition to his regular wages from the date of production of certified copy of this order, along with 5% simple interest. 15. No order as to costs. ———