Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 61 (MP)

Suresh Pateria v. State of M. P.

2021-01-20

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2021
ORDER 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner by the instant petition is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 3.7.2020 (Annexure-P/1), passed by the State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. 2. To decide the issue involved in the case, the necessary facts are adumbrated as under :- As per the petitioner, the Board of Directors of respondent-Bank (respondent No.4 herein) passed a resolution on 23.1.2019 regarding appointment of the petitioner as a Samiti Prabandhak and an order in this regard was issued on 24.1.2019, in pursuance to which, the charge has been given to the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhatarpur wrote a letter on 4.2.2019 (Annexure-P/4) to the General Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Chhatarpur asking to produce some record regarding the appointment of the then Branch Manager after the death of the then Cooperative Branch Manager, namely, Braj Nandan Bajpai. In response to the said letter, the Branch Manager of respondent No.2 issued an order dated 18.2.2019 (Annexure-P/5) asking respondent No.5 to give the charge of Branch Manager, Seva Sahakari Samiti, Rampur. Thereafter, on 18.10.2019 (AnnexureP/6), the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Chhatarpur issued a show-cause notice to the Branch Manager of respondent No.2 asking him to explain as to under what authority he issued an order of appointment of In-charge, Branch Manager, in favour of respondent No.5. The order of the Branch Manager passed on 18.2.2019 was assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision under section 80-A of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1960’). The said revision was decided by the Joint Registrar vide order dated 3.10.2019 (Annexure-P/9) setting aside the order dated 18.12.2019 and maintaining the order dated 24.1.2019 whereby the petitioner in pursuance to the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of respondent No.4 has been appointed as an In-charge, Cooperative Manager. Thereafter, respondent No.5 challenged the order dated 3.10.2019 passed by the Joint Registrar, before the High Court by filing W.P. No.22439/2019, but the said writ petition was dismissed as not-maintainable on the ground that the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner and to avail the said remedy, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. Thereafter, respondent No.5 challenged the order dated 3.10.2019 passed by the Joint Registrar, before the High Court by filing W.P. No.22439/2019, but the said writ petition was dismissed as not-maintainable on the ground that the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner and to avail the said remedy, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. The Tribunal, finally allowed the revision vide order dated 3.7.2020 (Annexure-P/1) which is impugned in this petition on two grounds, firstly, that the Joint Registrar could not have entertained the dispute under section 80-A of the Act, 1960. As such, the order dated 3.10.2019 (Annexure-P/9) was not proper and secondly, that the said order was also not proper as it has been passed by the authority considering the fact that the aggrieved person in whose favour order dated 18.2.2019 was passed had not been made party and without giving him an opportunity of hearing, the order could not have been passed and as such allowed the revision. 3. The petitioner by the instant petition is challenging the order of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, could not have entertained the revision in view of the provision of section 80-A of the Act, 1960 and secondly, if the Tribunal was of the opinion that respondent No.5 was a necessary party, the order could not have been passed by the Joint Registrar without giving him opportunity of hearing and the matter could not have been remanded back directing the Joint Registrar to direct the petitioner to make respondent No.5 as a party and after giving him an opportunity of hearing, the dispute raised by the present petitioner before the Joint Registrar would be decided. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the observation made by the Tribunal in respect of entertaining the dispute by the Joint Registrar under section 80-A of the Act, 1960 was not proper and was contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1960. He also contended that section 80-A gives full power to the Joint Registrar to entertain such dispute and it is rightly entertained and decided by the Joint Registrar. However, he submitted that the matter could have been remanded back to the Joint Registrar for deciding it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5. He also contended that section 80-A gives full power to the Joint Registrar to entertain such dispute and it is rightly entertained and decided by the Joint Registrar. However, he submitted that the matter could have been remanded back to the Joint Registrar for deciding it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5. He further submits that accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the petition deserves to be allowed. At the most the matter could have been remanded back to the Joint Registrar for deciding afresh. 4. Shri Ankit Saxena, per contra, has opposed the contentions of the petitioner relying upon the stand taken by him in the reply and stated that the order passed by the Tribunal is perfect and the dispute raised before the Joint Registrar under section 80-A of the Act, 1960, could have been entertained. He further submits that the Tribunal was of the opinion that the dispute was legally entertained by the Joint Registrar under section 80-A of the Act, 1960 and finding in this regard has been given by the Tribunal, then there was no occasion for the Tribunal to remand the matter to the Joint Registrar for deciding the dispute afresh. 5. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the core question is whether the dispute entertained by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies under section 80-A of the Act, 1960 was in accordance with law or not? Secondly, if the dispute could have been raised before the Joint Registrar and has rightly been raised then the matter could have been remanded back to the Joint Registrar giving direction that the dispute be decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5. 6. As far as the finding regarding application of section 80-A of the Act, 1960 is concerned, the Tribunal has observed that instead of filing an application under section 80-A of the Act, 1960, the petitioner should have approached the Registrar under sub-section (2) of section 55 of Act, 1960. It is also observed by the Tribunal that when there is a specific provision available under the Act, invoking the power under section 80-A of the Act, 1960 by the Registrar was not held proper. It is also observed by the Tribunal that when there is a specific provision available under the Act, invoking the power under section 80-A of the Act, 1960 by the Registrar was not held proper. However, the observation and finding of the Tribunal in this regard, in my opinion, is not justifiable and reasonable. It is apposite to mention the respective provision of section 80-A, which reads thus; “80-A. Power of Registrar to call for proceedings of sub-ordinate officers and Board of Directors of a society and to pass orders thereon;- The Registrar may, at any time on his own motion or on an application made by any party, call for and examine the record of any enquiry or the proceedings by any sub-ordinate officer or a decision or order of the Board of Directors of a society for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer or Board of Directors. If in any case it appears to the Registrar that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the Registrar may pass such order thereon as he may deem fit: Provided that in case of co-operative credit structure, the findings observed by the Registrar shall be communicated to the society, and the society shall place on record before the committee the advise so communicated and take appropriate decision : Provided further that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of any party unless such party has had an opportunity of being heard : Provided also that powers of Registrar under this section shall not be delegated to an officer not below the rank of Joint Registrar.” 7. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, there is no iota of doubt that any dispute between the employee and employer can be raised before the Registrar and a dispute relating to disciplinary action taken by the society can also be raised. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, there is no iota of doubt that any dispute between the employee and employer can be raised before the Registrar and a dispute relating to disciplinary action taken by the society can also be raised. As far as the order passed by the Manager of respondent No.4 quashing the order passed by the President, Cooperative Society in pursuance to the resolution passed by the Board of Directors is concerned, it clearly reveals that the Branch Manager issued an order contrary to the decision taken by the Board of Directors and, therefore, the order dated 18.2.2019 cannot be said to be an order passed by the society and it is also not touching the service conditions of the petitioner. The petitioner, infact, is asking implementation of the decision of the Board of Directors and sub-section (2) of section 55 of the Act, 1960 does not speak about power to test the validity of the order of Board of Directors and, therefore, the petitioner instead of invoking the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 55, approached the Registrar under section 80-A of the Act, 1960. For the purpose of convenience, section 55(2) is reproduced as under :- “55[(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:] [Provided also that the Registrar or the officer referred to above may admit dispute after the expiry of thirty days, if the applicant satisfy the Registrar or officer referred to above that he had sufficient cause for not referring the dispute within the stipulated time.]” 8. It is apparent that under the aforesaid provision, the Registrar has not been empowered to examine the validity of decision of Board of Directors. It is apparent that under the aforesaid provision, the Registrar has not been empowered to examine the validity of decision of Board of Directors. The petitioner is basically claiming that the order dated 18.2.2019 passed by the Branch Manager is overriding the decision of Board of Directors and as such, the same is illegal and be quashed. If both the provisions i.e. sub-section (2) of section 55 of the Act, 1960 and section 80-A of the Act, 1960 are compared, then distinction between both these provisions can easily be made out that under section 55, the Registrar has been given power to determine the conditions of employment, but under section 80-A, the Registrar has been empowered to test the validity of any proceeding of its subordinate officers and Board of Directors for which the Registrar can call the record and if it appears that such decision needs any modification, the same can be done whereas under section 55, the Registrar can examine and determine the service conditions of an employee of the society or deal with any dispute in relation to the same by his own or by appointing any officer, not below the rank of Assistant Registrar, to decide the said dispute. It is clear that when the decision of Board of Directors has to be tested, it can be done only by the Registrar that too by invoking power under section 80-A of the Act, 1960 and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the observation made by the Tribunal in respect of invoking section 80-A of the Act, 1960 by the petitioner is concerned, is not only erroneous but also shows wrong interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 55, therefore, not sustainable and I have no hesitation to say that the petitioner has rightly approached the Joint Registrar invoking section 80-A of the Act, 1960. It is pertinent to mention here that as per section 3 of the Act, 1960, the Joint Registrar can exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred and imposed upon the Registrar. The notification issued in this regard under sub-section (2) of section 3 is available on record as Annexure-P/12 empowering Joint Registrar, Sagar to exercise the power of Registrar. 9. The notification issued in this regard under sub-section (2) of section 3 is available on record as Annexure-P/12 empowering Joint Registrar, Sagar to exercise the power of Registrar. 9. As regards second point is concerned, it is not out of place to mention that the Joint Registrar in its order dated 3.10.2019 has set aside the order dated 18.2.2019 but not given any opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5. The order dated 18.2.2019 has been passed in favour of respondent No.5 authorizing him to work as an In-charge Manager, therefore, without hearing him said order cannot be held illegal and cannot be annulled. The Joint Registrar since not provided any opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5, therefore, to that extent the order suffers from violation of the principle of natural justice and is not sustainable. The finding given by the Tribunal in that regard is correct, but in the fact situation of the case, the matter is remitted back to the Joint Registrar to decide the validity of order dated 18.2.2019 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5. Therefore, the order of Tribunal dated 3.7.2020 (Annexure-P/1), which is impugned in this petition, is set aside and the petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid observation. The matter is remitted back to the Joint Registrar to decide the dispute as directed hereinabove within a period of two months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order. 10. The petition is allowed in the abovementioned terms.