PRESIDENT BUCHIREDDIPALEM Vs. D SIVA SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal we are called upon to decide whether the employee of a Co-operative Rural Bank (a Primary Society under the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act herein after called 'the Act') has to retire on attaining the age of superannuation as prescribed under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules hereinafter called 'the Rules' and the bye laws of the society or he is entitled to be continued in ; service upto the age of 60 years claiming protection under Sec.40(3) of A.P. Shops and Establishment Act hereinafter called 'the Shops Act.'

(2.) The facts that are necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: The appellate-bank dismissed the respondent from service w.e.f. 1-9-1983 by its order dated 31-8-1983 on the ground that the respondent while working as Secretary of the society committed grave financial irregularities and also embezzled the funds of the society. Aggrieved by the said orders he filed an appeal before the Competent Authority under the Shops and Establishments Act. In the appeal the appellant herein also brought to the notice of the authority that the respondent has to retire from service on 7-10-1993 on attaining the age of 55 years which is the age of superannuation for a primary society employee under the Rules and the question of reinstating him does not arise. The Competent Authority in case S & E.A.No. 15/85 File No.A 1382/85, dated 15-2-1988 held that the appellant-bank failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the A.P.S. & E Rules 1968, no regular enquiry was held to prove the charges levelled against the respondent and held the removal of the respondent from service by the appellant-bank as illegal and invalid. As the respondent crossed the age of superannuation during the pendency of the appeal, the Competent Authority directed the appellant-bank to pay an amount of Rs. 17,675/- as compensation for illegal termination of his services two months prior to the date of retirement. Aggrieved by the said orders while the appellant-bank filed S.A.No.10/88, the respondent filed S.A.No. 14/88 by contending that he is entitled to continue in service as contemplated under Sec. 40(3) of the Shops Act before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its judgment dated 10-6-1989 confirmed the finding of the Competent Authority to the effect that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of A.P. Shops and Establishments Rules were not followed and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority to dispose of the matter afresh by giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant-bank herein to prove the mis-conduct against the respondent and after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the respondent to adduce further evidence, if any. On the appeal preferred by the respondent, the Labour Court felt that the provisions of the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act are applicable to the appellant-bank and under Sec. 40(3) of the said Act as the superannuation of an employee is fixed at 60 years with an option to him to retire voluntarily earlier under the circumstances enumerated therein remanded the matter as the Competent Authority did not consider this aspect while disposing of the matter. Questioning the common judgment of the Labour Court the employee filed W.P.No. 9858/89 on the file of this Court. This Court by its judgment dated 20-1-1993, held both the issues in favour of the respondent. Having declared that the termination order is illegal and as the respondent completed 60 years of age during the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Judge directed the appellant-bank to pay compensation for illegal termination of his services. It is useful to extract the operative portion of the order hereunder:

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal was filed by the appellant-bank. While admitting the writ appeal this Court by order dated 17-8-1993 in WAMP 1426/93 directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 10.OOO/- subject to further orders that may be passed in the writ appeal. It is brought to our notice that the said order was complied with by the appellant bank.