SEVARAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge, who heard this petition, felt that the decision of this Court in Gwalior District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Gwalior v. Ramesh Chandra Mangal, [1979 M. P. L. J. 631] relating to the rights of the employees of the Co-operative bank to seek relief of reinstatesment on the dismissal/removal being illegal, needed reconsideration by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before us.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner was in the employment of the Nimad Jila Kendraiya Sahakari Bank Ltd; Khandwa and was a confirmed Suprevisor. Service Rules framed under Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 governed his employment. On 6-1-1975 the petitioner's services were terminated without any prior inquiry and without assigning any reasons for the termination. The petitioner approached the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 55 (2) of the Act, His claim was dismissed and it was found that the case was one of retrenchment for which three months' notice alone was sufficient. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who by order dated 28-12-1978, accepted that appeal and held the order terminating the petitioner's services bad. Relief of reinstatement was granted. The Additional Registrar held that the petitioner was entitled protection guaranteed under Rules 43, 44 and 45 of the Service Rules and was entitled to a charge-sheet and an inquiry before his services could be terminated. The Bank preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also held by its order dated 25th March, 1980, that the petitioner was engaged in trade union activities for which he was warned and the record showed that the Bank was unhappy with his union activities. It was, therefore, concluded that the petitioner's removal was a result of those activities which resulted in some indiscipline amongst the employees and was not congenial of harmoneous relationship between the employee and the employer. The termination was held an act of victimization on account of petitioner's trade union activities. The Board has ultimately found that a Departmental Enquiry ought to have proceeded against the petitioner before his services were terminated. All the same, feeling bound by the decision is Ramesh Chandra Mangal's case (supra), the Board refused to grant re-instatement and held the petitioner entitled to only damages. A compensation has been awarded to the petitioner in a sum equal to an amount of one month's pay for each completed year of service. The petitioner claims that the Board was wrong in refusing re-instatement which could have been granted to the petitioner on a finding that his removal from service was an act of victimization due to trade union activities and not a termination simpliciter.

(3.) Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, before its amendment by Ordinance 22 of 1975, [published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 20th November, 1975 and confirmed by Act No. 14 of 1976, was as follows :