JUDGMENT 1. Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 17552/2010/D2 dated 20.9.2013 and the proceedings of the second respondent in Ref.No.XIV/E-73/1999 dated 20.09.2013, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 2. The Case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is set out hereunder:- The petitioner joined the Dharmapuri District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited as Shift Supervisor on 15.2.1990. In June, 1999 he was transferred to Salem Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited, Salem. Again, he was transferred to Pudukottai District Cooperative Spinning Mills on 16.4.2013. Since he was not well, he had taken medical leave from 17.4.2013 to 13.6.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner went to pudukottai District Cooperative Spinning Mills on 14.6.2013 to join duty. But, he was not permitted to join duty. Hence, he made a representation before the respondents and the respondents passed an order dated 3.7.2013. Thereafter, he joined the second respondent office viz., the Krishnagiri District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited. He was again appointed as Shift Supervisor of the second respondent office. Suddenly, without any reason, the petitioner was transferred by order dated 20.9.2013 to Bharathi Spinning Cooperative Mills at Ettayapuram, Thoothukudi District. Hence, Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 3. The Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has been issued with number of charge memos during his service and also warning. All the Trade Unions and workers have given number of petitions as against the petitioner for his misbehaviour, misconduct and harassment with workers and they insisted the management to take action against him. Due to the negligence of work, poor performance and also due to workers stir, based on the recommendation of the management, the first respondent had transferred the petitioner to pudukottai District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited in the place of one N. chezhian vice versa the said N. Chezhian was transferred to the Krishnagiri District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited. The Said C. Chezhian had obtained interim stay as against the transfer order by filing a writ petition before this Court. Hence, the petitioner was not permitted to join duty in the Pudukottai District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited. The Said C. Chezhian had obtained interim stay as against the transfer order by filing a writ petition before this Court. Hence, the petitioner was not permitted to join duty in the Pudukottai District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited. In view of the order of interim stay granted by this Court, the Director of Handlooms has cancelled the order dated 16.4.2013 and again posted the petitioner at Krishnagiri District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited vide proceedings dated 3.7.2013, when the petitioner came to join in the mills on 5.7.2013, all the workers of the mills refused to work and informed the management that they would enter on strike, if the petitioner was allowed to join in the mills. In order to avoid untoward incidents for smooth functioning of Mills and to avoid notional loss to Mills, the petitioner was transferred to Bharathi Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited. The Director of Handlooms and Textiles is the Registrar of all the Cooperative Spinning Mills and he is the authority for all appointments and transfer in respect of staff of all cooperative Spinning Mills Limited. The second respondent is having ample power to transfer an employee to any other Cooperative Spinning Mills in Tamil Nadu under the provisions of by law No.25 (12) of the Bylaws of the Krishnagiri District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited as approved by the Director of Handlooms and Textiles Limited. Thus, the counter affidavit sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. It is the Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no provision under the Cooperative societies Act to transfer an employee from one Cooperative Society to another Cooperative Society. Such a transfer is contrary to Rule 149 (2A) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules. When there is no provision for transfer of an employee from one Cooperative society to another, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are liable to be quashed. Whereas, it is the submission of the learned additional government leader appearing for the respondent society that the second respondent is having ample power to transfer an employee to any other Cooperative Spinning Mills in Tamil Nadu under the provisions of bylaw No.25(12) of the Bylaws of the Krishnagiri District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited as approved by the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, who is the functional Registrar of Cooperative Spinning Mills. 5. 5. I have heard the submissions made in either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is the Submission of the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no provision under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 to transfer an employee from one cooperative mill to another cooperative mill and as per Rule 149 (2A) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, such transfer can be made only on deputation basis. In this regard, it would be useful to extract Rule 149 (2A) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, and the same is extracted hereunder:- “(2-A) A Society may transfer an employee to another society for a period of not less than one year on deputation basis and the other society may avail the services of that employee on the terms and conditions agreed to by both the societies: Provided that no such transfer shall be made for a period exceeding three years.” A close reading of the above said provision would show that an employee of the Cooperative Societies can be transferred only on deputation basis. But, in the instant case, the petitioner was not transferred on deputation basis. However, it is the submission of the learned Additional Government pleader appearing for the respondents that the second respondent has ample power to transfer an employee to another Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited under the provisions of bylaw 25 (12) of the Bylaws of the Krishnagiri District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited. Bylaw 25 (12) of the Krishnagiri District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited is usefully extracted hereunder:- “25 (12) to make, vary or repeal regulations for the business of the Mills and the workers consistent with the Act, the Rules made thereunder and these bye-laws.” The said provision does not deal with the transfer power of the second respondent. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Additional Government pleader appearing for the respondents that by virtue of Bylaw 25 (12) of the Krishnagiri District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited, the second respondent is having ample power to transfer an employee. Further, as observed above, as per Rule 149 (2A) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, an employee can be transferred only on deputation basis and not otherwise. Further, as observed above, as per Rule 149 (2A) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, an employee can be transferred only on deputation basis and not otherwise. So far as the present case is concerned, the transfer of the petitioner from Krishnagiri District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited to Bharathi Cooperative Spinning Mills at Ettayapuram is not on deputation basis. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are contrary to Rule 149 (2A) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 and as such, the same are liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. 7. In fine, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.