LAWS(KAR)-1996-9-38

BASAVARAJU Vs. SECRETARY SAHAKARI BHANDARA SIRA TOWN

Decided On September 05, 1996
BASAVARAJU Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY, SAHAKARI BHANDARA, SIRA TOWN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates on both sides.

(2.) In this case, the petitioner who was an employee of the respondents, had been removed from service and he challenged that order and obtained an award in his favour from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The respondents appealed against that order unsuccessfully. Subsequently, since the petitioner had not been reinstated and the terms of that order had not been complied with, he filed execution proceedings before the Court of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C. at Sira. The 3 respondents once again contested these proceedings on all sorts of technical and unsustainable grounds instead of having the good sense to comply with the order. They were successful in their attempts in so far as the Court upheld one of the pleas, namely that this was an order passed by the Assistant Registrar and even though a certificate under the Act had been obtained that the order or decree in question had not been formally transferred to the executing Court and that therefore, the executing Court was not obliged to act on that certificate. The present civil revision petition is directed against that order.

(3.) The petitioner's learned Advocate draws my attention to Section l01(1)(a) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act which prescribes that the certificate which is signed by the Registrar shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court. He submits that this order was not passed by any other Civil Court and consequently, there was no question of applying for any transfer of the decree. The learned Advocate submits that the respondents are obliged in law to reinstate the petitioner and that it is implicit, that the terms of the award which prescribed that the period from the date of removal up to the date when he is reinstated are required to be treated as duty period. He consequently submits that the respondents are obliged to pay to the petitioner his normal salary for this period.