VIJAYKUMAR Vs. SUNDERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioners, who were employees in the Co-operative Society known as the Mandsaur District Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. This Society was registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act on 20-11-1961.

(2.) It is alleged by the petitioners that in the year 1966 the M. P. Co-operative Land Development Act came into force and thereafter the name of the Mandsaur District Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank was changed to the Mandsaur District Co-operative Land Development Bank and it is alleged that management of this Bank was done by the Board of Directors elected under the bye-laws of the Bank. Till the year 1971 the elected Board constituted under the bye-laws of the Bank was managing the affairs of the Bank. In the year 1971 the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in exercise of power vested in him under Section 53 of the Act superseded the Board and appointed Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Soc.eties, Mandsaur, as an Officer-in-charge of the Bank to manage its affairs.

(3.) That in the year 1974 an Ad-hoc committee was appointed to manage the affairs of the Bank under Section 53 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. It is alleged that after an Ad-hoc committee was nominated, this Bank which was running in losses started making profits and there was an ambitious plan before its Board of Directors to enhance the business. The Staff Committee, therefore, decided to appoint additional staff and ultimately after proper selection and the formalities the petitioners were appointed as employees in the Bank. It is alleged that these appointments were made after a written test and interview by the Staff Committee and the Assistant Registrar. It is also alleged that they were initially appointed on probation and subsequealy their probation period was finali ed and they were confirmed in accordance with Rule 15, which lays down that initially the period of probation was to be for one year, which could be extended for six months. It is alleged that ia any event beyond one year and six months, i. e. 18 months it could not be extended and all these petitioners had worked for about three years in the Bank. It is alleged that this Committee, which was appointed in the year 1974 was removed and in exercise of powers under Section 53 (1) a fresh Board of Directors was appointed by orders of the Joint Registrar and it is alleged that it is this Committee which was functioning when the services of these petitioners were terminated. It is alleged that the services of all these petitioners were terminated by the Staff Committee in accordance with Rule 17 by giving one month or three months' notice. But it is contended in this petition that under Rule 17 the power of termination lay with the Board of Directors and not with the Staff Committee or any sub Committee appointed by the Board.