SURENDER SINGH Vs. BRAHATAKAR PRATHMIK KRISHI SAHAKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition briefly, are as follows: The petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 1, the Brahatakar Prathmik Krishi Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit, Dhamnod, a Co-operative Society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By an order dated 16-11-1979, respondent No. 1 terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that they were no longer required and the petitioner was paid three months'salary in lieu of three months' notice. On 10-12-1979, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 64 of the Act before respondent No. 4, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The petitioner contended that the order of termination of his services was illegal and that he be reinstated with back wages. The application was resisted by respondent No-1 inter alia, on the ground that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Act to entertain the dispute. This contention was upheld by respondent No. 4 by his order dated 11-9-1980 by holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner could not be entertained under Section 64 of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3, the Joint Registrar, who set aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. The Joint Registrar, by his order Annexure 'H', held that the dispute raised by the petitioner could be entertained under Section 64 of the Act. The Joint Registrar further held that even if it was held for the sake of argument that the dispute in question could not be entertained under Section 64 of the Act, the said dispute could be entertained under Section 55 (2) of the Act The Joint Registrar accordingly directed the Assistant Registrar to dispose of the dispute raised by the petitioner either under Section 64 or under Section 55 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, respondent No. 1, preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed that appeal and after setting aside the order passed by respondent No 3, restored the order passed by respondent No. 4. The Board of Revenue held that the dispute raised by the petitioner on 10-12-79, before the Assistant Registrar could not be entertained either under Section 64 of the Act or under Section 55 (2) of the Act, as it was in force at the material time and hence, the Assistant Registrar was right in holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) Shri Pavecha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that under Section 55 (2) of the Act, as it stood on 10-12-1979, only a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a Co-operative Society against its employee could be referred to the Registrar and that as no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner by respondent No. 1, he could not raise a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act. It was urged that the dispute could only be referred to the Assistant Registrar under Section 64 of the Act. In reply, Shri Nimgaonkar, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, contended that the Board of Revenue was right in holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner could not be entertained under Section 64 of the Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court reported in Sahakari Vipnan Sanstha, Khargone v. Labour Court, Indore [1986 JLJ 740].