ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be a union/association of retired employees of Karnataka Milk Federation, the 4th respondent herein and employees of various other District Milk Unions as denoted in Annexure-L produced along with application dated 18.02.2020. Annexure-L reveals 16 entities who are employers of the various members of the petitioner-union. The fact remains that many of the members of the union are not even employees of the 4th respondent Federation. Despite the same, an omnibus prayer is sought from this court i.e. to issue mandamus to the 4th respondent to extend pensionery benefits not only to the retired employees of the 4th respondent-Federation, but also to retired employees of all other unions as reflected in Annexure-L. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempts to contend that in the light of ruling of the Full Bench of this court in the case of K.V. Panduranga Rao vs. Karnataka Dairy Development Corporations, Bangalore and Others, 1993 SCC Online Kar 243, it has to be construed that the 4th respondent has all pervasive control over the various milk unions and in view of such control, the employees of the various unions are also to be construed as employees of the 4th respondent. 3. The learned counsel would further submit that as the 4th respondent has been held to be a State, the direction sought to the State Government to consider the representation is maintainable. To state the least, the said contention is not merely far fetched but capable enough off creating tremors with devastating effect if accepted. 4. The Full Bench was examining an issue of maintainability of the writ petition against the Corporation and the 4th respondent Federation which admittedly is an entity registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. The Full Bench taking note of the fact that the Federation was discharging public obligations was pleased to hold that the writ petition in terms of article 12 of the Constitution is maintainable against the society. 5. This court has given its anxious consideration to the contention canvassed and has adverted to the findings rendered in the aforestated decision. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would attempt to contend that as the Full Bench has held that the Sate has deep and pervasive control over the Federation in view of the findings etc. 5. This court has given its anxious consideration to the contention canvassed and has adverted to the findings rendered in the aforestated decision. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would attempt to contend that as the Full Bench has held that the Sate has deep and pervasive control over the Federation in view of the findings etc. and the Federation being described as the instrumentality of the State, the employees of the Federation which otherwise are Cooperative Societies, are to be construed as employees of the State Government. The contention is not only appalling but is totally without basis. The issue as to whether the Federation was a State or not has been examined by the Full Bench only with reference to Article 12 of the Constitution regarding maintainability of the writ petition. The judgment nowhere has declared the employees of the Co-operative Societies as the employees of the State Government. It is but a fact, which is also acknowledged by the Full Bench, that the Federation is a society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and each society is an independent entity having its own bylaws which are held to be supreme in the matter of governance of said society. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any provision under the Act and Rules which empowers the 4th respondent to alter the service conditions of the employees of other milk unions. This being the factual matrix of the case, question of directing the State to consider the representation would not only be an empty formality but a futile writ as no duty is cast on the State Government to consider the representation as none of the members of the union are demonstrated to be Government/Civil Servants. 8. It is not the case of the petitioner that they have raised a dispute and in the light of the dispute the Government is required to mediate the question of pensionery benefits which is wholly governed by the service conditions and the bylaws of the society. 9. The petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate either a right in them to seek such a consideration or a corresponding duty in the State Govt. 9. The petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate either a right in them to seek such a consideration or a corresponding duty in the State Govt. to consider the representation nor have they been able to demonstrate any provision either in the statute or byelaw which empowers the State Government to issue instructions in so far as it relates to altering service conditions, to the 4th respondent. In that view of the matter, the question of issuing any mandamus to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would not arise. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition in so far as it seeks for mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the representation stands rejected. In so far as the 4th respondent is concerned, the members of the union who were on the pay rolls of the 4th respondent, as its permanent employees, are entitled to make a representation to the 4th respondent, if such representation by the employees of the 4th respondent is made to the 4th respondent within a period of four weeks from today, the 4th respondent shall consider and dispose off the same in accordance with law. 11. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed off.