THE JULLUNDUR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., JULLUNDUR Vs. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioner banks duly registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), terminated the services of private respondents who were working as Junior Accountants with them. On appeals preferred by these employees, the orders passed by the Board of Directors of these banks were set aside. These orders are now impugned by these banks in these two Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 4511 and 4573 of 1981. The impugned order in Civil Writ No. 4511 is Annexure P. 6 passed by the Joint Registrar on September 8, 1981 whereas in Civil Writ No. 4673, it is Annexure P. 9, dated September, 14, 1981, passed by the Registrar. Vide the last order, the Registrar while setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent employee has appointed Junior Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jullundur, as the Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry afresh into the charges levelled against the said respondent. In view of the identity of the contentions raised and similarity of facts involved, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that these petitions can conveniently be disposed of through a common order and I propose to do that.

(2.) THE primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that no appeals were maintainable against the orders of dismissal passed by the petitioners qua their employees under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules, 1958 as these rules have already been held to be ultra vires. Support for this submission is sought from an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ No. 1223 of 1976 (The Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Chandigarh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh through its Chief Commissioner and others C.W. No. 1223 of 1976) decided on September 10, 1976, which judgment in turn is based on an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hardial Singh v. State of Haryana, 1974 S.L.W.R. 815. This submission of the learned counsel, however, appears to be totally irrelevant for the reason that the stand of the respondent authorities is that they had passed the impugned orders in exercise of their appellate jurisdiction, as available in bye -law No. 37 (iv). It is not in dispute that this bye -law has been duly framed and registered in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of the Act. Mr. Khoji, however, submitted that this bye -law itself is invalid for the same very reason for which the corresponding rule in the above noted Rules has been held to be ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1223 of 1976 (supra), i.e., by providing appellate powers to himself against the actions and orders of the petitioner Societies pertaining to the conditions of service of their employees, the Registrar has assumed powers which had otherwise been denied to him under the Act. The learned counsel explained that under the Act the Registrar cannot arbitrate or refer for arbitration any matter pertaining to the conditions of services of an employee of a Cooperative Society (Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 245) and, therefore, this bye -law is against the mandate and the spirit of the Act. Mr. Khoji also sought to contend that in view of the provisions of clause (j) of Rule 8 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) read with section 2(h) of the Act, the Society at the most could frame a byelaw relating to the appointment, suspension or removal of its officers only end not qua each and every employee. Thus according to Mr. Khoji, this bye -law is even beyond the scope of power vested in a Cooperative Society to frame bye -laws. These submissions of Mr. Khoji do not bear scrutiny and have essentially to be repelled. He does not dispute that the bye -laws have been framed or adopted by the Society of its own volition and have duly been registered These cannot be said to have been framed by the Registrar as was the case with regard to the Rules held ultra vires in Civil Writ No. 1223 of 1976 (supra). Therefore, in this case it cannot be attributed to the Registrar that he has assumed to himself a power through the bye -laws which had otherwise been denied to him under the Act. The question whether a right and forum for appeal could be provided for through the bye -laws was squarely settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ No. 549 of 1968 (Moderen Cooperative Transport Society Ltd Gurgaon through its Secretary v. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh and others) C.W. No. 549 of 1968 decided on February 16, 1971, wherein it has specifically been held that forum of appeal can be provided for through the (bye -laws). It has also been, observed in this judgment that: - -

(3.) MR . Khoji, however, deserves to succeed in the light of his last submission when he contended that even if the appeals against the orders of the petitioner -Societies terminating the services of the respondent -employees were competent, then these could only be determined or decided by the authority specified in the bye -law and none else This bye -law reads as follows: - -