Vivek Agarwal, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the M.P. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Maryadit Karmchari Sangh, Bhopal being aggrieved of the action of the respondents No. 3 and 4 in reducing the rate of overtime from double the wages as prescribed in Section 55 of the M.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 to single rate. This decision of the Authorities which was to come into force w.e.f. 01.10.2001 is under challenge before this Court.

2. Shri Ashish Shroti has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition saying that the respondent is a Federation of Cooperative Societies. Reading from the bye-laws contained in Annexure P-13, it is submitted that it is not an instrumentality of the State and, therefore, it will not fall within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution to be treated as a State.

3. It is further submitted that the decision of the Board of Directors was inconsonance of the financial condition of the respondents, therefore, no indulgence is required in the matter.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Government has stake of Rs. 309.09 Lacs in the capital of the M.P. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Maryadit Karmchari Sangh, Bhopal. This is out of total paid up capital of 353.45 which constitutes 87.44% of the share capital. Thus, first argument put forth by Shri Ashish Shroti that respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction is not made out in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited and Another Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 221 [LQ/SC/2009/830] wherein Supreme Court has held that M.P. State Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. is covered by the definition. It is held that since the federation not only carries on commercial activities, it works for achieving the better economic development of a section of the people. It seeks to achieve the principles laid down in Article 47 of the Constitution of India namely nutritional value and health. It undertakes training and research work. Guidelines issued by it are binding on the societies. It monitors the functioning of the societies under it. It is an apex body. It must, therefore, be held that the appellant would come within the purview of the definition of "State" as contained in Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the present case, the aims and objectives of the M.P. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Maryadit, Bhopal are as under-:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

6. When these objects are read then they are inconsonance with provisions contained in Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India which deals with the distribution of ownership and control of the material resources of the community to be so distributed as to best subserve the common good. Article 43(a) deals with participation of workers in management of industries. Article 43(b) deals with promotion of cooperative societies. Thus, it is evident that respondents are discharging their constitutional duty and not only promoting distribution of essential commodities and other commodities amongst the beneficiaries on an equal footing but are also responsible for promoting participation of workers in the management of the societies and also promotion of the cooperative societies.

7. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court and also the judgment of Constitution Bench of this Court in M.P. State Cooperative Dairy Federation Vs. Madan Lal Chourasia, 2007(2) MPLJ 594, I have no hesitation to hold that respondents' society is discharging the functions akin to that of State beside discharging Constitutional functions as enumerated above and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

8. This leads to another question that whether respondent authorities are free to take any decision dehors the Rules and Regulations or are bound by the Rules and Regulations.

9. Shri Ashish Shroti is at loss to show any provision of law under which impugned decision was taken to reduce the rate of overtime. On the contrary, Shri K.C. Ghildiyal has shown Section 55 of the M.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 which provides for rate on which over time is to be paid and reads as under:-

"55. Wages for overtime work.-Where an employee in any establishment is required to work in excess of the limit of hours of work, he shall be entitled, in respect of the overtime work, to wages at the rate of twice is ordinary rate of wages."

10. In the present case, it is not the stand of the respondents that provisions of M.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 are not applicable.

11. On the contrary Shri Ashish Shroti submits that he had not seen this provision. However, when he is requested to show from record that under which provision impugned action was taken, he is unable to demonstrate any legal provision under which said impugned action was taken by the respondents, therefore, in absence of any provision being brought on record to justify the action of the respondents No. 3 and 4, that deserves to be set aside because an instrumentality of the State cannot act in an arbitrary and illegal manner and is supposed to loathe every decision of its with reasoning and transparency.

12. In absence of reasoning and transparency backed by the legal or statutory sanction, said decision is set aside and petition is allowed. It is directed that petitioner will be entitled to overtime in terms of the provisions 7 contained in Section 55 of the M.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958.

13. In above terms, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

14. Certified copy as per rules.