IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.50 of 1989
Date of decision:03.12.2009
The Binjon Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Binjon.
....Petitioner
versus
The Labour Court through its Presiding Officer, Gurdaspur and another.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement
with back wages. Before the Labour Court, the workman contended that
he had been employed as a Salesman/Clerk in the management
Cooperative Society on 1st November, 1976 and his services were
illegally terminated by resolution of the Society purported to have been
passed on 13th December, 1980. The contention was that the termination
made without any notice or enquiry was against the principles of natural
justice and the order of dismissal was contrary to law. The management
sought to contend that the workman had committed misappropriation of
funds and a dispute having been raised before the Arbitrator under
Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act resulted in an award
Civil Writ Petition No.50 of 1989 -2-
for Rs.12,367.25. An appeal had been filed which was dismissed and a
revision was also dismissed. The award given by the Arbitrator
according to the management, proved the embezzlement. It was also
contended in the written statement that a notice had been sent on
03.11.1980, when the workman was reported to have confessed to the
embezzlement and agreed to pay the embezzled amount or furnish
security for Rs.12,000/-. He was reported to have also signed in the
proceeding book as an admission of his embezzlement.
2. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself
and gave evidence to the effect that no notice had been given before the
termination and that he had not admitted to any guilt. The Labour Court
had also referred to the fact that although the management contended that
the workman had responded to notice by admission of guilt based on
which resolution had been passed, the original was not produced before
the Court. Even the so-called admission of his guilt where the workman
was said to have put his signatures in the proceeding book, was not
before the Court. The photocopies of notice and resolution had been
given Mark-A and Mark-B, but they were not exhibited as evidence in
view of the fact that the management had no explanation to give for the
non-production of the originals and the documents stood unestablished.
The Labour Court found that in the absence of any domestic enquiry, the
award passed by the Arbitrator fixing a particular liability itself, could
not prove a misconduct.
2. In my view, the decision of the Labour Court cannot be
faulted, firstly, because the scope of an enquiry in a dispute that could be
Civil Writ Petition No.50 of 1989 -3-
referred to arbitration as contemplated under Section 55 could merely
address a claim by a Society for any debt or demand due to it from a
member or a claim of a Society for enforcement of surety or a dispute
concerning election of an officer. The nature of dispute which could be
prosecuted is set forth under Section 55(2) which reads as under:-
“(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1) , the following be
deemed to be disputes touching the constitution,
management or the business of cooperative society, namely-
(a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to
it form a member or the nominee, heirs or legal
representatives of a deceased member, whether such
debt or demand be admitted or not;
(b) a claim by a society against the principal debtor
where the society has recovered from the surety any
amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it
from the principal debtor as a result of the default of
the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is
admitted or not;
(c ) any dispute arising in connection with the election of
any Officer of the society.”
3. This proceeding for enforcement of a debt could prove a
civil liability and an award passed by an Arbitrator could result in an
existing liability by a member of the Society or a workman in favour of
the Society. The said liability cannot be assumed to be proof of
misconduct. The imputation of embezzlement and the proof as such are
completely different from determination of a liability and secured
through an award under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies
Act. If the management had in response to a notice obtained an
admission of guilt from the workman, that could perhaps justify an action
for termination of service. This was precisely the issue which was put
for adjudication before the Labour Court but the management did not
avail to itself the opportunity granted to it to make proof of what it was
Civil Writ Petition No.50 of 1989 -4-
bound to do before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, therefore,
reasoned that in the absence of any enquiry and in the absence of proof
of alleged admission of guilt, the order of termination was illegal. On
such a finding, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages. The award of the Labour Court is
justified being in accordance with law and there is no scope for
intervention in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. No costs.
(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE
03.12.2009
sanjeev