DHARAM PAL SINGH PANWAR Vs. B S OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed Land Valuation Officer by the Haryana State Co- operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd., (hereinafter called the Bank) by an order dated December 14, 1967, after he had successfully completed training for fourteen weeks. The appointment was temporary and was terminable at any time after giving one month's notice. The scale of pay was Rs. 80-5-120/8-200 with usual allowances admissible under the Bank rules. A copy of that order is annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the Executive Committee of the Bank in a meeting held on March 10, 1969, and it was decided to give him one month's salary in lieu of notice. Consequently, on March 14, 1969, he was informed that the Executive Committee had decided to terminate his services with effect from the date of the receipt of the letter by him and that one month's salary in lieu of period of notice was being allowed to him. He was, therefore, directed to relinquish charge of his post at once. Against that order, the petitioner filed a representation to the Chairman of the Bank and forwarded a copy thereof to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for his intervention, as it was alleged by the petitioner that the termination of his services was illegal. In continuation of that representation, he sent another representation to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, which was forwarded to the Joint Registrar (Credit and Marketing) Co-operative Societies, Haryana, by the Registrar with the endorsement "J.R.C.M. may hear the appeal on my behalf". The copy of the original representation has not been filed with the petition but a copy of the second representation has been filed as annexure 'C' to the writ petition. Before the Joint Registrar it was contended by the petitioner that he had been removed from service as a punishment for misconduct whereas the case of the Bank was that his services had been terminated under the terms of his appointment and that he had no right of appeal under the Service rules. The petitioner asserted that he had made the representation with a view to invoke the jurisdiction of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to decide the matter himself or refer it to arbitration by another person under Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). The Joint Registrar decided to treat it as a reference to him, under the said Sections of the Act with the following observation :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the representations made by the petitioner to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, were references under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act and that the Joint Registrar rightly treated the second representation as a reference of a dispute to him for decision. I regret my inability to agree. The first representation was made by the petitioner to the Chairman of the Bank and only a copy thereof was endorsed to the Registrar for intervention. This re-presentation, therefore, did not amount to asking the Registrar to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the Bank himself or to refer it for decision to another authorised person under Sections 55 and 5 6 of the Act. The second representation also was not made under those sections as is clear even from the observation of the Joint Registrar. There was thus no reference of a dispute to the Registrar nor did he refer the petitioners' representation to the Joint Registrar for decision as a reference of a dispute. The Registrar's endorsement forwarding the representation to the Joint Registrar clearly shows that he treated it as an appeal and asked the Joint Registrar to decide it on his behalf. A provision for an appeal has been made in Rule 10 of the Service Rules of the Haryana State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd., but it was contended on behalf of the Bank before the Joint Registrar that the said rule gave power of filing an appeal to a permanent employee and not to a temporary employee and, therefore, the appeal was not competent on behalf of the petitioner as he was a temporary employee. It was because of this objection that the petitioner changed his position and stated that it should be treated as a reference of a dispute under Section 55 of the Act. The Joint Registrar could not take cognizance of it suo motu as a reference of a dispute. If the Registrar had been aware of this position; he would have passed appropriate orders under Section 56 of the Act. No such order having been passed, the award made by the Joint Registrar dated June 5, 1970 was without jurisdiction and has been rightly set aside by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Haryana, under Section 69 of the Act.

(3.) The matter that was raised before the Joint Registrar related to the termination of services of the petitioner by the Bank and such a matter is not referable under Section 55 of the Act, as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. 250 of 1970, Mustafabad Cane Growers Co-operative Society Ltd. Mustafabad V. Suraj Bhan Tayagi and others, decided on December 17, 1970, in which it was held that the matter relating to the termination of the services of an employee of a Co-operative Society could not be referred for decision to the Assistant Registrar as arbitrator. Reliance was placed by the Division Bench on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., and others etc. V. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others, 1970 AIR(SC) 245a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The Jullundur Transport Co-operative Society, Jullundur V. The Punjab State and another, 1959 AIR(P&H) 34, and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s. The Bhatinda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bhatinda V. The State of Punjab and others,1969 PunLR 752, which was affirmed on appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. 312 of 1969, decided on July 16, 1970. From these judgments it is evident that the matter which the Joint Registrar treated as a dispute for decision by arbitration under Section 55 of the Act was not referable and the Joint Registrar assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in him. His award was, therefore, a nullity.