MUSTAFABAD CANE GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. SURAJ BHAN TAYAGI EX-SECRETARY MUSTAFABAD, CANE GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MUSTAFABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURAJ Bhan Tayagi, respondent in this appeal filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of the Joint Secretary to Government, Haryana, Co -operative Department, Chandigarh, dated 18th November, 1968, by which he set aside the orders of the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Ambala, and the Cane Commissioner, Haryana, exercising the powers of Registrar, Co -operative Societies.

(2.) SURAJ Bhan claimed that he was the Secretary of the appellant -society and the members of the managing committee obtained from him a letter of resignation from his post as Secretary of the Society on 11th July, 1966, by coercion and unlawful methods. Or 14th December, 1966, he made an application to the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh under section 55 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), for referring the dispute for decision under section 56 of the Act. The dispute was referred to the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies as an arbitrator who gave his award in favour of Suraj Bhan on 9th August, 1968, holding that he did not tender his resignation voluntarily and of his own free will and that he should be paid his emoluments within thirty days of the date of the award. The appellant filed an appeal against the award under section 68 of the Act but the same was dismissed by the Cane Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Registrar of Co -operative Societies, on 8th October, 1968. The appellant then filed a revision before the State Government under section 69 of the Act which was allowed by the Joint Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development Department, on 18th November, 1968. Suraj Bhan thereafter filed the writ petition in this Court challenging the legality and the correctness of the order of the Revising Authority.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the provisions of section 55 of the Act and has strongly urged that the matter of dismissal or removal from service of an employee is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the Co -operative Society and, therefore, is not referable to arbitration by the Registrar. Section 58 of the Act is in these terms: -