HINDUSTHAN CABLES LTD Vs. JATINDRA KR DAS CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, I am dealing with three matters. First is the appeal which has been preferred from the order of Basu, J. dated the 6th July, 1965, by the Managing Director, Hindusthan Cables Limited, secondly, the cross objection on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Sri Jatindra Kumar Das Chaudhury and thirdly, the application made by the respondent No. 1 for adding the Hindusthan Cables Limited and the Chief Engineer thereof as parties.

(2.) The facts are briefly as follows : The respondent No. 1 was employed by the Hindusthan Cables Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") and was appointed Secretary of the Hindusthan Cables Employees' Co-operative Society, a society registered under the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the society") since its inception in 1956. As a result of the report by the Auditor appointed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies for the year 1960-61, the Managing Committee of the society was dissolved and an Administrator was appointed who took charge on the 1st February 1963. On 26th March 1963 the Administrator filed a claim against respondent No. 1 for recovery of Rs.5,447.33 paise before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, under Section 86 of the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), asking for a reference to arbitration. The Registrar referred the matter to Shri N. N. Kirthania, the District Auditor, for arbitration. The Arbitrator made an award dated 14th August, 1963, making the respondent No. 1 liable to the Society for a total sum of Rs. 4,860.40 paise under two headings namely, insurance account and advance account. The said respondent then preferred an appeal under Section 134 of the said Act, which was heard by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Burdwan, who dismissed the appeal by his Order dated 21st January 1964. Thereafter, the award was being sought to be executed and on 24th April 1964 the respondent No. 1 made an application, under Article 226 of the Constitution in this High Court.

(3.) A Rule was issued which came to be heard before Basu, J. who decided the matter by his judgment dated 6th July, 1965. So far as the award is concerned, the learned Judge set it aside on two grounds, firstly that it was an incomplete award and secondly, the sharing of insurance commission between a person not licensed under the law and another was illegal and, therefore, void and unenforceable. In the meanwhile, criminal proceedings were started against the respondent No. 1 which was also challenged in the said application. The learned Judge held that the criminal proceedings were valid and competent. There is another point which is a point to be considered in this appeal, namely, a suspension order passed against respondent No. 1 by the Chief Engineer of the company dated the 26th March, 1964. On the 21st March 1964 notice was served on respondent No. 1 for taking disciplinary action and the respondent No. 1 was suspended. The point arose before the learned Judge in the Court below about the suspension order, and he came to the conclusion that as neither the company nor the Chief Engineer was a party, he could not make any order quashing the order of suspension. Now an appeal has been preferred against the said order by the Managing Director, Hindusthan Cables Limited.