Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1145 (MP)

Gopal Singh Yadav v. State of M. P.

2016-12-14

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2016
ORDER 1. In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.9.2016 and 5.10.2016 passed by respondents No.3 and 4 respectively whereby petitioner has been removed from the post of Salesman of the Fair Price Shop. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice, has submitted that order Annexure P-1 has been issued by respondent No.3 Deputy Registrar whereby decision to remove the petitioner has been taken. The present writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that it is a dispute within the meaning of section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. However, the petitioner has admitted in para No.3 of the petition that he is having remedy under section 55(2) of the Act but since the Deputy Registrar himself has taken a decision to remove the petitioner then in such circumstances, question of raising dispute under section 55(2) of the Act does not arise. 4. For the purpose of convenience section 55(2) of the Act is reproduced as below :- “55. 4. For the purpose of convenience section 55(2) of the Act is reproduced as below :- “55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies :- (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf : [Provided that in the case of cooperative credit structure, the Registrar may frame rules governing and terms and conditions of employment on the basis of the guidelines specified by the National Bank.] (2) Where a dispute including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees: Provided that the Registrar or the Officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned : Provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded”. 5. From bare perusal, it is clear that as per section 55(2) of the Act where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working condition and disciplinary action taken by the society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any Officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees. 6. In the instant case, the Deputy Registrar has passed the impugned order, the Registrar is the competent authority as per section 55(2) of the Act to decide the dispute himself or appoint any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Registrar. 7. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner by raising dispute under section 55(2) of the Act. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 8. 7. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner by raising dispute under section 55(2) of the Act. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 8. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file dispute under section 55(2) of the Act before Registrar within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today which shall be decided in accordance with law. It is made clear that in case petitioner prefers dispute within 15 days, the question of limitation shall not come in the way.