MANAGER RAIBAG TALUK PRIMARY CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTUREAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OP SOCIETIES BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE orders at Annexures-H and J. are called in question in this writ petition. Respondent No. 3 was working as Secretary in petitioner Bank during the period 1-1-1961 to 18-10-1976. While he was working as Secretary, he misappropriated certain sums of money belonging to the society. The petitioner society instituted proceedings under section 69 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies against the petitioner. The deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed the order dated 30-1 -1988 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14,969. 69 paise with future interest on principal amount. The said order is confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 29-12-1989 in Appeal No. 353/88. The order of Karnataka Appellate tribunal was confirmed by this Court in W. P. No. 20476/1991 (disposed of on 26th May 1997 ). In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner-bank filed execution Petition in E. P. No. 646/1991 for recovery of Rs. 14. 969. 69 and interest. The same is pending before concerned authority. In view of the misappropriation of the amount, the third respondent was kept under suspension on 17-8-76 and after holding enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 29-1-1977. The order of dismissal was approved by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 20-7-1979. Accordingly, the order dated 16-8-79 was issued by the petitioner bank. In the meanwhile, the Common Cadre Authority was established on 1-10-1978. It seems the third respondent approached Common Cadre Authority for redressal and the common Cadre Authority withheld the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner bank as approved by Joint Registrar of Co-operative societies. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 42580/ 1982 before this Court challenging the order passed by the Common Cadre Authority. This court allowed the writ petition on 8-4-1986 and consequently the order of Common Cadre authority was set aside. The third respondent challenged the order passed by this Court in w. P. No. 42580/1982 before Hon'ble Supreme court of India in SLP No. 5748/1986, which was ultimately numbered as Civil Appeal No. 2582/1986. The Appeal came to be dismissed on 18-2-1991, as could be seen from Annexure-C. Thus the order of dismissal of third respondent was approved by Hon'ble Apex court also.

(2.) WHEN the facts stood thus, the third respondent filed application under Rule 18 (4)of Kannataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 praying for payment of gratuity before the Common Cadre Authority. Based on such application, the Common Cadre Authority directed the petitioner bank to pay a sum of rs. 49,908/- towards gratuity. The copy of the letter of Common Cadre Authority is produced at Annexure-F to the writ petition. Subsequently based on such a letter, the third respondent raised a dispute under Section 70 of karnajaka Co-operative Societies Act claiming the: aforesaid amount of gratuity. The first respondent passed the award as per Annexure-Hon 27-6-2002 for a sum of Rs. 1,43. 355/ -. The said order is confirmed by Karnataka appellate Tribunal on 16-4-2005 in Appeal no. 832/2002. Hence this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

(3.) AT the time of hearing, learned Sr. Advocate; Sri. Padmanabha Mahale appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised a preliminary question relating to maintainability of dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act before the Arbitrator for claiming the gratuity. According to him, the proceedings relating to payment of gratuity ought to have been initiated under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as the said Act is a self-contained code by itself for dealing with questions relating;to payment of gratuity. The said contention is opposed by sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. However Sri. A. G. Shivanna, learned Govt. Advocate supported the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner by contending that the dispute may not lie under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and the only remedy available for respondent No. 3 is to approach the concerned authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.