NILESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the petitioner's services were terminated by order dated 1/09/2018. The petitioner assailed such order directly before the Tribunal under Section 78 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960'). The Co-operative Tribunal by its order dated 26/11/2018 remitted back the case to the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies for adjudication of the dispute. While the dispute was preferred before Joint Registrar by the petitioner it got delayed, thereby as per Section 55 (2) of the Act of 1960, 30 days time had expired therefore on that ground petition was dismissed by holding it as barred by time by Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there were two sets of litigants, one is the petitioner and other one is Omprakash Dubey. Both of them were terminated and had approached before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The tribunal had dismissed the petition by order dated 20/06/2019 since initially the dispute was directly raised before the tribunal. Against such order of dismissal, one of the other litigant, Omprakash Dubey had filed a W.P.S. No.5215/2019 before this court by Annexure P-5. This court by an order dated 17/07/2019 had remitted back the case to the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies who was vested with the jurisdiction to decide the original lis as it should have been raised under Section 55 (2) of the Act of 1960. It is contended the petitioner instead of filing writ petition before this court as was done by Omprakash Dubey this petitioner had approached to the Joint Registrar against termination raising a dispute. In adjudication to such dispute raised the Joint Registrar dismissed the petition on the ground that it is barred by 15 days of delay. Said rejection by Joint Registrar was further was challenged before the Co-operative Tribunal, that too was dismissed on 20/02/2020 by impugned order Annexure P-1. The counsel would submit that since the issue is about the termination as such by closure of the right of the petitioner on the ground of limitation would be too technical and no enormous or gross delay had occurred on the part of the petitioner and actually he had approached the wrong forum and was not sitting idle. It is stated considering the same the tribunal should have taken notice of the fact the order passed by this court in another similar lis of the like nature and should have remitted back the case for adjudication before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. He would further submit that the impugned order has caused gross illegality on the face of it which needs to be set aside.