K SRINIVASA NAYAK Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was an employee as salesman in the Kaup Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Kaup, in Udupi Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District. The third respondent herein raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the 'Act') inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was due and liable to pay a sum of Rs. 76,525.76/- on account of deficit in the assets of the Society valued at Rs. 15,285.85/- and that such deficiency was admitted by the petitioner-salesman who had promised to make good the same. That admission was contained in his letter dated 31st July 1981. He offered to make good the deficiency in instalments, but failed to do so. After certain adjustments made from his salary as on 2.8.1982 petitioner was due and liable to pay Rs. 9,756.63. Even after 31.7.1981 it was alleged by the third respondent- Society that the defendant continued to be a salesman in the cloth shop of the plaintiff at Kaup. On verification of the stock in the cloth shop it was found by the stock verifying officer from the office of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mangalore, in the presence of the staff of the Society and defendant that stock valued at Rs. 66,789.13/- was in deficit. It was alleged that the salesman in charge of the cloth section was therefore liable for such deficiency in the cloth shop. Third respondent-Society also claimed 16% interest on the aforementioned sum. Therefore, together with interest on Rs. 75,525.76/- they claimed relief by way of a decree against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 76,525.76/- as already noticed.

(2.) Defendant entered appearance on notice and filed his written statement dated 28.3.1983 before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kundapura. In the written statement he denied all the plaint allegations including the allegation that he had admitted his liability in regard to loss caused and his agreement to repay the same in instalments. After filing the written statement he remained absent and did not participate in the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar-arbitrator. These facts are not in dispute.

(3.) In the absence of the defendant, the Assistant Registrar proceeded ex-parte the defendant, recorded the evidence of the Secretary of the Cooperative Society and received in evidence certain documents including the letter alleged to have been written by the petitioner-salesman admitting his liability for the deficit mentioned agreeing to repay the same in instalments. The cloth stock register was also marked in evidence. After hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidence on record the Assistant Registrar passed the order as at Annexure-B, a certified copy of which is produced by the petitioner himself. By the said order dated 15th November, 1983 he decreed the claim of the third respondent society in to accepting the evidence. Aggrieved by that award petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 498/83 (Coop). That appeal came to be dismissed by an oiler dated 26th of September, 1984. Therefore, the present writ petition under Articles 226, and 227 of the Constitution inter alia on the ground (1) that the Tribunal erred in repelling the contention that petitioner did not have adequate opportunity before the Arbitrator (2) that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the other grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal which went to the root of the matter, (3) that the award was based on no evidence at all and therefore the Tribunal erred in sustaining that award and (4) that the written statement of the defendant Should have been acted upon by the Assistant Registrar and by failing to do so he had acted contrary to law and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him.