THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). JALANDHAR DIVISION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Punjab State Federation of Consumer's "Cooperative Wholesale Stores. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Constofed') is a Co -operative Society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). Aggrieved by the award at Annexure P -3 and the orders passed in appeal and revision (Annexures P -5 and P -6) it has approached this Court through the present writ petition. By the award, Respondent No, 4 who was employed as a Business Manager with the Petitioner, has been held entitled to an amount of Rs. 69,432 -66 towards the arrears of salary etc. The facts and circumstances relevant for the decision of the case may be noticed.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 was employed as Business Manager with the Petitioner when he was placed under suspension, -vide order dated 15th June, 1976. He was served with a charge -sheet and ultimately, -vide order dated 20th November, 1981. his four increments were ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect. He was also censured and it was ordered that he will not be entitled to any allowances for the period of suspension other than what had already been paid to him. On 12th July, 1982, the post of Business Manager held by Respondent No. 4 was abolished as a measure of economy and consequently his services were terminated. It is further averred in the petition that for the acts of omission and commission committed by Respondent No. 4 a criminal case was registered against him under Section 471 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The case is stated to be still pending. After the termination of his service and dismissal of his appeal against the order of termination, Respondent No. 4 is alleged to have approached the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter referred to as 'the Registrar') for a reference of his dispute regarding the recovery of arrears of pay etc. for the period of suspension under Section 55(1)(b) of the Act. This claim was made, -vide Annexure P. 1. The Petitioner resisted the claim and filed a detailed written statement, -vide Annexure P -2. In this written statement an objection with regard to the maintainability of the arbitration proceedings is also alleged to have been raised. After hearing the parties the arbitrator awarded to Respondent No. 4 an amount of Rs. 69,432 -66 which was to be paid in four equal instalments. The award was given on 6th October, 1986. The Petitioner claims to have applied for a copy on 30th October, 1986 which is alleged to be ready on 10th February, 1987. A photo copy of the award is alleged to have been received by the Petitioner from Respondent No. 4 on 20th April, 1987. The appeal was filed through his counsel by the Petitioner on 5th July, 1987. This appeal was dismissed by the Registrar on account of unexplained delay, -vide his orders dated 2nd March, 1988. The revision petition was also dismissed as no explanation had been given for filing the revision after an inordinately long delay. The orders passed on appeal and revision petition are at Annexures P -5 and P -6. Aggrieved by the award, as also the orders passed in appeal and revision the Consto -fed has approached this Court through the present petition.

(3.) THE order at Annexure P -3, it is stated by Respondent No. 4, is not an award by any arbitrator but an order passed by an officer exercising the powers of a Registrar. It is further maintained that the Registrar had not appointed any arbitrator but the order ' at Annexure P -3 was an order by an authority to whom the powers of the Registrar had been delegated. It has been further pointed out that on 8th July, 1986 the objection of the Petitioner regarding the maintainability of the claim of Respondent No. 4 had been rejected. No objection against that order was ever taken. Thereafter, the Petitioner participated, in the proceedings and when the final order was passed on 30th October, 1986 against the Petitioner, they were not entitled to challenge that order on the ground that the same was beyond the jurisdiction of the Additional Registrar. Various other averments made in the petition have also been controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4.