Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1969 (RAJ)

Bhilwara Kray Vikray Sahalaro Samiti Ltd. , Bhilwara v. Shiv Naryan Bishnoi

2017-09-04

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA

body2017
ORDER : Civil Misc. Applications No.192 of 2016 & 117 of 2017: For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the appeals is condoned. Special Appeals (Writ) No.299 of 2016 & 251 of 2017: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The State of Rajasthan as also the Bhilwara Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. are in appeals laying a challenge to an order dated 26th August, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 in the two captioned appeals. 3. The respondent No.1 is an employee of the Sahkari Samiti, which is a cooperative society. In respect of wages to be paid to the employees of the cooperative society the Registrar of the cooperative society had issued a directive on 30th November, 2009. Directive No.1 and No.3 of the directives are important. They put a condition that in respect of the recommendations of the 5th and the 6th Pay Commission, before the cooperative societies implement the same, it has to be ensured that for three previous consecutive years the society is making a profit and in no year in the previous three years there is a loss. The second directive is that there is sufficient cash in the reserve of the society. 4. The respondent had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6668/2010 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 16th August, 2010 directing that the representation made by the respondent would be disposed of within reasonable time. The representation made by the respondent not being disposed of he filed another writ petition seeking implementation of the recommendations of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission. The response was obviously premised on the directive dated 30th November, 2009 issued by the Registrar of the cooperative societies. 5. The learned Single Judge, in a two page order, after noting the aforesaid facts has held that since the respondent was an employee of the cooperative society, the State Government cannot impose any unreasonable restrictions and the direction is to ignore the directive dated 30th November, 2009 and as a consequence pay to the respondent salary in the pay scale as recommended by the 5th and 6th Pay Commission. 6. The impugned order gives no reason as to why the directive dated 30th November, 2009 is not reasonable. 7. On the contrary the directive is reasonable. 6. The impugned order gives no reason as to why the directive dated 30th November, 2009 is not reasonable. 7. On the contrary the directive is reasonable. No employer can be directed to pay wages to the employees if the employer is running into losses. A direction to pay money to such an employer would be to compel the employer to shut shop. 8. The directive places a reasonable restriction on the power of the management of the cooperative society to pay wages to the employees. Indeed, if there is inadequate reserve fund and additionally for three consecutive years the society is running into losses, payment of higher wages would obviously mean the liquidation of the society. 9. Under the circumstances we hold that the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge was not warranted and is hereby quashed. 10. The correct mandamus to be issued ought to be to direct the society to decide in light of the directive dated 30th November, 2009. The decision would be after looking into its balance sheet whether the society can pay higher wages and survive. 11. This exercise would now be completed by the society within a period of one month. If the society finds that it has adequate funds and would not proceed under liquidation, the society would be free to disburse the wages as per the recommendations of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission. The Registrar of the cooperative societies would be entitled to look into the decision taken by the society and see whether it conforms to the directive dated 30th November, 2009. 12. At this stage we note that the cooperative society has paid wages to the respondent as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission by notionally giving the pay scale as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission followed by the replacement pay scale recommended by the 6th Pay Commission. This payment would not be subject to any refund should the society take a decision to the contrary. But for future, wages would be paid as per the decision of the society. 13. The appeals are disposed of as above.