BERHAMPUR TOWN HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. M.D., ORISSA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant -Berhampur Town House Building Co - operative Society United (for short, "the Society") has filed this writ appeal questioning the correctness of the concurrent findings recorded by the Learned Single Judge on the contentious issues framed Co -operative Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar by the (hereinafter called as "the Tribunal") in affirming the Judgment dated 15th April, 2000 passed by -the Tribunal allowing the Service Dispute Case No.6 of 1996 directing the Society to reinstate Respondent No.2 in his original post as Secretary of the Society & pay his duty pay & leave salary as claimed by him subject to availability of leave at his credit & holding that Respondent No.2 is entitled to all consequential reliefs as Secretary of the Society taking various grounds & contending that the findings recorded on the contentious issue Nos.1, 2 & 3 by the Tribunal as erroneous & the same is contrary to the legal evidence on record & the substantial questions that would arise for consideration by this Court in appeal are to set aside the order impugned in this appeal & quash the Judgment of the Tribunal.

(2.) NECESSARY brief facts are required to be stated as the Tribunal as well as the Learned Single Judge has laterally adverted to the facts of the case which arose in Service Dispute Case No.6/96 filed by the Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal and legal rival contentions are urged. The same are answered against the Appellant by the Learned Single Judge after adverting to the legal rival contentions urged and the decisions placed by the Appellant's Counsel by recording a concurrent finding on the contentious issues framed by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE Appellant -Society filed written statement in the said Service Dispute Case before the Tribunal contending inter alia that Respondent No.2 being the workman, the service dispute raised by him under Section 67 -B of the Act was not maintainable and also pleaded that the claim was barred by limitation and further contended that the appointment of Respondent No.2 had not been approved by the Registrar of the Co -operative Society as required under Section 33 -A of the Act and Rule 21 (c) of the Bye -laws of the Society and he could have no claim for the post of Secretary and the termination was justified.