P.A. MOHAN Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER HRM DIVISION, HMT (W) LIMITED, SRI ESHWARA KUDI HRN PERSONNEL, HMT WATCHES LIMITED AND SREE THAYAGARAJA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 1,07,000/ withheld by them without authority. The case of the petitioner is that one Sri Jagadish, had availed loan of Rs. 50,000/ - from Sree Thyagaraja Co -operative Bank, Narasimharaja Colony, Bangalore. In respect of the same, the petitioner along with one another had signed as guarantors for the said loan. At an earlier instance, when there was claim with regard to the amount, the matter was considered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short) in Appeal No. 748/2008. In the said proceedings, there was certain interim order against disbursement of the amount to the petitioner. Subsequently, the appeal was disposed of and the matter has been remitted for reconsideration by the Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. The case of the petitioner is that despite the appeal being disposed of, the respondents have without authority withheld a sum of Rs. 1,07,000/ - which the petitioner is entitled, as the said amount is to be paid to the petitioner as voluntary retirement benefits. It is also the case of the petitioner that the attachment of such benefits is contrary to the provision contained in Section 60 of CPC. It is in that regard, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to the respondents to pay the said amount

(2.) THE respondents have filed their objection statement. The gist of the objections would indicate that the respondents have acted only as garnishee in view of the orders being passed by the Competent Authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). The fact relating to the appeal being disposed of by the KAT in Appeal No. 748/2008 is not disputed. But what is indicated is that during the earlier proceedings, there was an interim order and therefore, the amounts had been withheld. Even after remand of the matter, the Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies has passed an order dated 15.09.2011 directing that pending disposal of the dispute, the amount retained by the company should not be disbursed to the employee. If these aspects are kept in view, it is to be noticed that in the instant facts, it is not as if the respondents have withheld the amount belonging to the petitioner without authority. When a duty is cast on the respondents to obey the orders passed under the provisions of the Act and when the said Act also indicates the consequences that would flow if the order is not adhered, certainly, the respondents were justified in withholding the amount in view of the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co -operative Societies on 15.09.2011. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order passed by the Competent Authority under the Act, it is for the petitioner to appear before the Authority, seek modification of the same and thereafter, approach the respondents with regard to the payment, if any orders are passed by the Competent Authority. In the absence of such order, certainly the respondents cannot be directed to disburse the amount when they are bound by the orders of the Competent Authority. In that view, I see no reason to issue mandamus as sought for by the petitioner. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail all the appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law and thereafter approach the respondents. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.