MAM RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a dispute between a Co-operative Society on the one hand, and the employee, agent, or member, of another Co-operative Society (claming through a member), is within the ambit of arbitration under S. 55(1)(b) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961--is the significant question which has necessitated the hearing of this writ petition by the Full Bench. Also at issue is some discordance of precedent within this Court though at the motion stage.

(2.) Mam Raj petitioner was working as the salesman of the Imbli Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. which used to purchase fertilizers from the Jagadhri Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd., Jagadhri (hereinafter called the 'Marketing Society') on a consignment basis. The commission earned by the Imbli Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. (hereinafter called the Imbli Society), on the sale of such fertilizers payable by the Marketing society was shared equally by the petitioner and the Imbli Society. A dispute arose between the Marketing Society and the Imbli Society inter alia with regard to the payment of the commission on fertilizers and the matter was referred to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Yamunanagar for arbitration under S. 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The arbitrator rendered an Award therein, which, however, was later quashed by the Civil Court. Thereafter, the Marketing Society sought another arbitration claiming Rs. 16,721 from the petitioner. The arbitrator appointed in these proceedings gave his Award, Annexure P/1, against the petitioner as also the Mustafabad Farmers Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., jointly and severally, with the further direction that the amount be recovered first from the petitioner and if it cannot be so done, then it should be recovered from the Mustafabad Farmers Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. The petitioner appealed against the said Award and inter alia took up the stand that no arbitration was maintainable between the Marketing Society on the one hand and the petitioner on the other, because he was not a member of the said Society. The Joint Secretary to the Government, however, dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide annexure P/3. The present writ petition has been preferred against the said Award and was pressed primarily on the ground that no valid reference to the arbitration could be made as against the petitioner. At the motion stage, it was noticed that there were conflicting Division Bench decisions on the point and the writ petition was, therefore, admitted to a hearing by the Full Bench.

(3.) As before the Motion Bench, so before us, the primary and indeed the solitary challenge levelled on behalf of the petitioner is against the validity of the reference to the arbitration itself. It was contended that the petitioner not being a member of the Marketing Society, no valid reference to arbitration under Section 55 of the Act could be made against him. Consequently, the proceedings before the arbitrator and the appellate forum were vitiated qua the petitioner.