Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1030 (PNJ)

Jai Singh v. State of Haryana

2001-09-18

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA

body2001
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - The petitioner is working as a Daftri with the Cheeka Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd., Cheeka. He is aggrieved by the order of his retrenchment. A copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P3 with the writ petition. The petitioner alleges that the Administrator of the Society has no jurisdiction to order retrenchment. Thus, the petitioner prays that the impugned order be quashed. 2. We have heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the Administrator has been appointed by the Registrar merely to perform functions of the Managing Committee. He has no jurisdiction to pass any order of retrenchment. Is it so ? 3. A perusal of the order shows that the Society has virtually no income. It has an outstanding liability of Rs. 35, 00, 000/- towards the salary of the employees. It has an income of Rs. 30, 000/- per month on account of the godown that it owns. It is in this situation that the Administrator has passed the impugned order and directed the retrenchment of the petitioner by payment of requisite amount of compensation vide draft dated September 3, 2001 for an amount of Rs. 74, 354/- and a cheque for an amount of Rs. 5, 311/-. The petition does not show that he has not got the draft and the cheque encashed. Nothing has been produced on record to show that the Society has income so as to be in a position to bear the burden of the salary of various employees who are being retrenched, including the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that besides the income from the godown, the Society has also got two trucks. This fact has also been noticed by the Authority and it has been observed that the income from the old trucks is less than the salary of the delivers (drivers ?) and the cleaners. Mr. Vinod Sharma contends that the Administrator has no jurisdiction to order the retrenchment of an employee. It is admitted that the appointment of the respondent-Administrator has been made under Section 33 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. Mr. Vinod Sharma contends that the Administrator has no jurisdiction to order the retrenchment of an employee. It is admitted that the appointment of the respondent-Administrator has been made under Section 33 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. Clause (4) categorically provides that the Administrator shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have powers to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and take all such actions as may be required in the interest of the society. On a perusal of this provision it is clear that the Administrator exercised all the powers of the Managing Committee. He is empowered to take all such actions as he may consider to be in the interest of the Society. The impugned order is a clear instance of an action by the Administrator in the interest of the Society. It has not even been suggested that the order is contrary to any instructions issued by the Registrar. 4. Mr. Sharma contends that the action is contrary to the ratio of the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in A. Raghavan Nair v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and others, 1999(1) Lab.I.C. 528. In this case it was held that the "Government or the Registrar of Co- operative Societies has no power to effect appointment in a cooperative society under Sections 32 and 33." It was further held that the Administrator is "only expected to manage the affairs of the society and to exercise the functions of the committee and not expected to exercise powers of the elected committee." 5. With respect we find no warrant for reading such a limitation in the provisions of Section 33(4) of the Haryana Act. 6. Mr. Sharma has also referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K. Shantharai and another v. M.L. Nagaraja and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2925. This was a case relating to the enrolment of new members. It was held by their Lordships that the Administrator has to "conduct election with the members as on the rolls and by necessary implication, he is not vested with power to enrol new members of the Society." The decision has no application to the facts of the present case. 7. It was held by their Lordships that the Administrator has to "conduct election with the members as on the rolls and by necessary implication, he is not vested with power to enrol new members of the Society." The decision has no application to the facts of the present case. 7. No other point has been raised. 8. In view of the above, we find no merit in this position. It is, consequently, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.