NANDRAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions challenge the order dated 10.12.2001 of the respondent M.P. Matsya Mahasangh Sahakari Maryaditby which services of the petitioners on daily wages have been terminated with immediate effect. Since all the petitions are based on similar facts and seek relief of quashing the order dated 10.12.2001 by which their services on daily wages have been terminated, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For convenience, facts mentioned in W.P. No. 6442/2001 are being referred to.

(2.) THE petitioners were engaged by the respondent No. M.P. Matsya Mahasangh Sahakari Maryadit on daily wages. The respondent No. 2, it is not disputed, is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Earlier when steps were taken in pursuance of the Government Circulars to terminate the services of the daily rated employees who had been engaged after 31.12.1988, the action was challenged by the petitioners and others and by order Annexure P-3, the respondents were directed to scrutinise the cases of daily rated employees in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Government Circulars dated 14.2.2000 and 26.2.2000. The petitioners contend that without constituting the committee and undertaking the scrutiny as directed, the respondents have proceeded to terminate the services without any notice to the petitioners and without granting any opportunity to them to show cause against the proposed termination. It is also the stand of the petitioners that the matter with regard to the termination of the employment of the daily rated employees was not included in the agenda of the meeting dated 1.12.2001 of the Board of Directors nor requisite quorum was available in the meeting and the resolution to terminate the services of the petitioners could not have been passed. It has also been urged that persons junior to the petitioners were retained in service.

(3.) IN the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioners have a remedy of raising a dispute under section 55 (2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Learned Govt. Advocate has referred to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Sevaram Totaram Pargir v. Board of Revenue (1983 JLJ 627 = 1983 MPLJ 645) in support of his contention that Registrar hearing dispute under section 55 (2) has jurisdiction to grant reinstatement where dismissal or removal is found to be illegal being in contravention of Act or statutory rules and the power of the Registrar or the competent authority under section 55 (2) is akin to the powers of an appellate authority hearing appeal against an original action. While it is true that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the present case the facts are seriously disputed and issues have been raised which can be decided only on the basis of the evidence. While it is stated by reference to Annexure P-8 that from amongst the Directors present, Directors Dan Singh, Smt. Kunjlata and Shri Chhotelal had not voted in favour of termination of the daily rated employees, the respondents maintain that they had voted in favour and had signed the minutes. Dispute has also been raised in the Rejoinder with regard to the signatures of some of the Directors in the minutes of the meeting. These matters can be decided only on the basis of evidence. Again, while the petitioners contend that committee was not constituted to screen the cases as directed, the respondents contend that committee was constituted vide Annexure R-2 to take decision which met on 6.12.2001 and decided to remove all daily rated employees as per decision Annexure R-3. These matters can, therefore, be best decided in a dispute under section 55 (2) by the Registrar or other officer appointed by him in this behalf.