KAIGA PROJECT EMPLOYEES CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Co-operative Society and the respondent No.2 was its Junior Manager (Accounts). Alleging that the respondent No.2 has misappropriated certain amounts, committed the breach of trust, dereliction of duty on his part, the petitioner dismissed the respondent No.2 from its service vide its order, dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure-E). Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the respondent No.2 raised the dispute before the first respondent Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies invoking Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The first respondent by his order, dated 22.01.2005 (Annexure-A) set aside the dismissal order directing that the period from the dismissal order till the date of his reinstatement be treated as the one spent on duty and directing the payment of backwages. The first respondent's order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Appeal No.212/2005 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru ('K.A.T.' for short). The K.A.T. by its judgment, dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure-B) dismissed the appeal. On suffering two concurrent orders, this petition is filed by the petitioner Co-operative Society.

(2.) Shri J.S.Shetty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first respondent has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the impugned dismissal order is passed only by the President and without the approval of the Managing Committee. He submits that the conduct of the respondent No.2 does not entitle her to any benefit. He submits that pursuant to the conditional interim order, dated 11.08.2009, the petitioner reinstated respondent No.2 back into its service. However, the respondent No.2 worked just for 23 days and without any valid reason sought leave for three months. Even when the leave was not granted, she has stopped coming to the Office of the petitioner. He submits that the respondent No.2 is not interested in resuming her work. He submits that the respondent No.2 is running a parallel Society. He submits that if the petitioner Society is made to pay the backwages even for the period during which the respondent No.2 has not worked, it would have serious financial ramifications for the Society.

(3.) Shri V.G. Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the lady employee is being victimised. She is not being assigned with any work and not being permitted to be in the Office. He submits that the respondent No.2 has even lodged a complaint with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in that regard complaining of the harassment at the hands of the petitioner Management. He prays for the dismissal of this petition.