KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, I propose to dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 4685 and 5040 of 1991. The facts of the case have been taken from the former one.

(2.) The petitioner, who had been working as a salesman in the Tugal Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Tugal (hereinafter called the'Society') left the service of the Society in the year 1982, when certain sums of money were shown as outstanding against him. An arbitration case under Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act') was initiated against the petitioner and the matter was referred for decision to the Arbitrator, who found that a sum of Rs. 14,408.95 was due from the petitioner with future interest at the rate of 17 1/2 per cent per annum upto the date of payment of the principal amount. A copy of the award dated 25th July, 1983 has been appended as Annexure P-1 to the petition. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal under Section. 68 of the Act before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies. Jagraon, who vide his order dated 25th February, 1985, Annexure P-2 to the petition, reduced the principal amount recoverable from the petitioner to Rs. 9,933.75. The petitioner still dis-satisfied by the order against him, filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Act before the State Government and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18th January, 1990, Annexure P-3 with the petition. Aggrieved by the orders. Annexures P-l to P-3, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in which various points were sought to be raised by him. However, the motion Bench vide its order dated 18th September, 1991 recorded as under :

(3.) Mr. Ramesh Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Society, has, however, brought to my notice a Full Bench decision of this Court reported as State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh and others, 1986 Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 64 ( 1979 PLJ 334), in which Amer Kumar's case (supra) has been over ruled and it has been held that although Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be strictly applicable to arbitration proceedings under the Act, the principles thereof are and as such, the Arbitrator was expressly warranted and authorised to grant future interest on the amount awarded upto the date of its realization. In view of this decision of the Full Bench, the first argument made by Mr. Saggu has no force.