BERHAMPUR TOWN HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ORISSA COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BERHAMPUR Town House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. (in short, 'Society) represented by its Secretary has filed this writ application challenging the judgment passed by the Co -operative Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in Service Dispute Case No.6/1996 (Annexure -1), directing the petitioner -Society to reinstate O.P.2 - Susanta Kumar Dash in his original post as Secretary of the Society and pay his duty pay and leave salary as claimed by him subject to availability of leave at his credit and holding that O.P.2 is entitled to all consequential reliefs as Secretary of the Society. The impugned judgment was passed on 15.4.2000 and this writ application was filed on 14.2.2001. This Court by the interim order passed on 26.2.2001 in Misc. Case No.1682/2001 stayed operation of the impugned judgment (Annexure -1) and the said interim order is continuing.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this writ application are: O.P.2 as plaintiff filed Service Dispute Case No.6/96 before the Tribunal alleging that he was working as the Secretary of the Society and also as the Additional Secretary from 12.9.80 to 27.3.96, during which period he performed his duty to the satisfaction of the authority. His grievance was that the Board of Directors of the Society arbitrarily and illegally terminated his service on 31.1.96, which fact was intimated to him by registered Letter dated 27.3.96. O.P.2 pleaded that on being selected in the interview, he was appointed as Secretary of the Society by its President by order dated 5.9.1980 and he joined the post on 12.9.80. After posting of one D.C. Senapati as regular Secretary, the plaintiff O.P.2 was assigned with the duty of the Additional Secretary on 23.3.1987, which he accepted with objection. O.P.2 further averred that during the period between 14.10.1987 and 26.8.1993 he was seriously ill for various ailments and remained on leave from time to time on medical grounds but his leave salary for the periods he was on leave was denied to him. Ultimately, he joined on 26.8.1993 and was regularly attending the Office of the Society but he was not allotted with any work. Ultimately when he made a representation on 12.3.96 claiming his leave salary and duty pay, the petitioner -Society by letter dated 27.3.96 intimated O.P.2 that service had been terminated with effect from 27.3.1996, O.P.2 received the aforesaid letter on 29.3.1996. Against the aforesaid decision, O.P.2 as plaintiff filed the aforesaid Dispute Case before the Tribunal under Section 67 -B of the Orissa Co -operative Societies Act, 1962, to quash the order of termination of his service and to allow him to continue as the Secretary of the Society.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of O.P.2. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for O.P.2, submitted that O.P.2 was not a workman as he was appointed as Secretary of the Society. Thereafter, he was appointed as Additional Secretary of the said Society and it was also an admitted fact that O.P.2 had undertaken supervisor training in the Cooperative Training Institute, Baripada and passed the same in the year 1981 -82. Due to his illness, he remained absent for the period from 14.10.1987 to 27.10.1987. Though O.P.2 joined in his duty on 28.10.1987, leave salary for the above period was denied to him. Again he became ill from 23.11.1987 to 20.12.1987. He resumed his duty as Additional Secretary on 21.12.1987, but his leave salary was also not sanctioned. After being fully cured he joined his duty on 26.08.1993. Though he was regularly attending the Office of the Society he was not allotted with any work and ultimately, he was intimated by a registered letter dated 27.3.1996 stating that his services were terminated since 27.3.1996. It was also stated therein that O.P.2. was appointed as Secretary, which is in administrative or managerial capacity, for which the nature of his work also does not show that he was a workman. According to Mr. Rath, learned counsel for O.P.2, the decision in Secretary, Larambha Service Cooperative Society Ltd (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. According to him, the order of termination was passed without framing any charge nor was there any allegation of misconduct against O.P.2 calling for termination of his service. That apart, O.P.2 had also made an effort to apprise the Management from time to time by extension of leave along with medical certificates, which were not taken into consideration.