2025:UHC:5093-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA/345/2020 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. 1. Mr. Kailash Chandra Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. Mahavir Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. There is delay of 1330 days in filing the appeal. Notice was issued to the respondents on the delay condonation application vide order dated 13.01.2021; however, no objection is filed by them. 4. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the delay condonation application (CLMA No. 11473 of 2020) is allowed. 5. This intra-court appeal is directed against the final order dated 24.04.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 829 of 2013. The impugned order is extracted below for ready reference:- “Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Heard. Petitioner is claiming the parity with the employees of the State Government for the release of payment of salary. This plea cannot be accepted. Petitioner is the employee of the society and not of the State Government. However, the employer is directed at least to pay the minimum wages, fixed by the 2025:UHC:5093-DB State Government to the petitioner under the Minimum Wages Act, within ten weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of.” 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) was engaged on fixed honorarium in Large Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd., Devdung, Purola, District Uttarkashi in the year 1986. 7. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that initially honorarium at the rate of ₹200/- per month was paid to such employees, which has now been increased to ₹6,000/- per month. He further submits that financial condition of Cooperative Society is precarious and if the Society is made to pay minimum wages, in terms of final order passed by learned Single Judge, it will not be in a position to carry on its activities. 8 He further submits that the stand taken by Society in its counter affidavit was not at all considered. He further submits that Society in question is a Primary Cooperative Society which is not receiving any financial aid from the State or the Central Government and it is meeting its expenses from its own resources, therefore, writ petition would not be maintainable against the Society, however, this aspect was not considered although pleading to this effect was made in para 3(iii) of the counter affidavit. 9. We find substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The writ petition filed by employees against a Cooperative Society 2025:UHC:5093-DB would not be maintainable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rana vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & another, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 634, has discussed the legal position regarding maintainability of writ petition against a Primary Cooperative Society. Relevant para of the said judgment, are extracted below:- “10. It has not been shown before us that the State exercises any direct or indirect control over the affairs of the Society for deep and pervasive control. The State furthermore is not the majority shareholder. The State has the power only to nominate one Director. It cannot, thus, be said that the State exercises any functional control over the affairs of the Society in the sense that the majority Directors are nominated by the State. For arriving at the conclusion that the State has a deep and pervasive control over the Society, several other relevant questions are required to be considered, namely, (1) How was the Society created? (2) Whether it enjoys any monopoly character? (3) Do the functions of the Society partake to statutory functions or public functions? and (4) Can it be characterised as public authority? 11. Respondent 2, the Society does not answer any of the aforementioned tests. In the case of a non-statutory society, the control thereover would mean that the same satisfies the tests laid down by this Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] . [See Zoroastrian Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Distt. Registrar, Coop. Societies (Urban) [(2005) 5 SCC 632] .] 12. It is well settled that general regulations under an Act, like the Companies Act or the Cooperative Societies Act, would not render the activities of a company or a society as subject to control of the State. Such control in terms of the provisions of the Act are meant to ensure proper functioning of the society and the State or statutory authorities would have nothing to do with its day-to-day functions. 13. The decision of the seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas [(2002) 5 SCC 111 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 633] whereupon strong reliance has been placed, has no application in the instant case. In that case, the Bench was deciding 2025:UHC:5093-DB a question as to whether in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court, the law was correctly laid down in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India [(1975) 1 SCC 485 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 99] and if not whether the same deserved to be overruled. The majority opined that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This Court noticed the history of the formation thereof, its objects and functions, its management and control as also the extent of financial aid received by it. Apart from the said fact it was noticed by reason of an appropriate notification issued by the Central Government that CSIR was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was on the aforementioned premises, this Court opined that Sabhajit Tewary [(1975) 1 SCC 485 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 99] did not lay down the correct law. This Court reiterated the following six tests laid down in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] : (Pradeep Kumar Biswas case [(2002) 5 SCC 111 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 633] , SCC pp. 149-50, para 85) “(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost the entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character. (3) It may also be a relevant factor … whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State-conferred or State-protected. (4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. (5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (6) ‘Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference’ of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government.” This Court further held: (Pradeep Kumar Biswas case [(2002) 5 SCC 111 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 633] , SCC p. 134, para 40) 2025:UHC:5093-DB “40. The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia [(1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be — whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory, whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State.”” 10. For the aforesaid reason, special appeal is allowed. Impugned final order dated 24.04.2017 is set aside. However, respondent no. 1 shall be at liberty to make representation to the Competent Authority for ventilation of his grievance. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.06.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f 07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d136951 2ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6 F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE 58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.06.18 23:45:54 -07'00'