RAMANUJ TIWARI Vs. M P STATE COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 17. 9. 2007 passed by learned single Judge in W. P. No. 12054/07 (S) under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayayalaya (Khand nayaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the appellant was working as deputy Manager with respondent No. 4 Cooperative Society and was posted as District Marketing Officer in the year 1983 in district Raigarh. On 14. 6. 1985, he was suspended and charge-sheeted and a departmental enquiry was conducted against him and thereafter he was served with an order of termination on 4. 1. 1994. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the appellant filed an appeal before the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 4 Cooperative Society and the Board of Directors quashed the order of termination and instead imposed a penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, but the managing Director of the Cooperative Society did not allow the appellant to join his duties. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") before the Registrar, cooperative Societies and the Registrar exercising his power under Section 55 (2) of the Act appointed Deputy Registrar, cooperative Societies as his nominee to decide the dispute. The deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies by order dated 8. 7. 2005 directed the respondent No. 4 Cooperative Society to comply with the direction of Board of Directors of the Cooperative Society. Since the Deputy Registrar did not give direction regarding back wages, the appellant filed an appeal before the Registrar, cooperative Societies under Section 78 (1) of the Act claiming back wages. The appeal was transferred to the Additional registrar, who, by order dated 27. 1. 2006 affirmed the order of deputy Registrar. The appellant then filed second appeal before the M. P. State Cooperative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal")which was registered as S. A. No. 74/2006. An objection was raised by the respondent No. 4 before the Tribunal that the deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act and the Tribunal held that the deputy Registrar did not have jurisdiction under Section 55 (2)of the Act and quashed the order passed by the Deputy registrar. Aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petition W. P. No. 12054/2007 (S) in this Court and by the impugned order dated 17. 9. 2007 the learned single Judge upheld the view taken by the Tribunal that under Section 55 (2) of the Act the Deputy registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

(3.) MR. Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the language of Section 55 (2) of the Act is clear that a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a society can be decided by the Registrar or "any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar" and therefore the tribunal has come to an erroneous conclusion that the registrar could not appoint a Deputy Registrar to decide the dispute. He submitted that the Tribunal appears to have taken a view that it is only the Registrar or the Joint Registrar who can decide the dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act because of the notification No. F-5-1-1999-XV-1-A, dated 26th July, 1999 issued under Section 3 (2) of the Act by the State Government directing that all powers conferred with the Registrar under the act and the rules made under the Act shall be exercised by the joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. He submitted that by a notification issued under Section 3 (2) of the Act, the State government cannot restrict the power of the Registrar expressly and specifically conferred by Section 55 (2) of the Act to appoint "any officer not below the rank of Assistant Registrar" to decide a dispute regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society.