GURBUX SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 14206 of 2013

(2.) THE writ petition challenges the award passed by the Deputy Registrar as Arbitrator under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The award was challenged in appeal under Section 68 of the Act before the Joint Registrar and in revision before the Commissioner all of which failed and, therefore, the person against whom the award was' passed is before this court challenging the award and the subsequent orders passed respectively in appeal and revision. The petitioner was the Manager of Dehati Cooperative Marketing -cum -Processing at the relevant time when a sales person in whose custody fertilizers stock had been entrusted were said to have been mis -appropriated resulting in loss of over Rs. 3 lakh. A resolution had been, passed by the Society on 25.3.1975 for recovery of the amount towards value of shortage of fertilizers from salesman Gurbachan Singh. Subsequent to the resolution, an application for appointment of an Arbitrator was made by the Manager of the Society and entrusted the work with the Assistant Registrar for taking action and securing the recoveries against the legal representatives, of the then deceased salesman. An application for impleading the petitioner appears to have been filed on 24.2.1981 on an averment that at the relevant time the petitioner was the Manager and stocks to the worth of Rs. 3.5 lakhs odd was embezzled by the store keeper with the connivance of the petitioner and that the amount was liable for recovery against both of them. The petitioner had filed a petition for deletion of his name contending that there had been at no point of time any charge or inquiry against him and he cannot be made liable for the alleged loss. The argument was that when the Deputy Registrar passed the award on 31.1.1983, he had not actually taken the decision regarding the impleadment of the petitioner and the entire text of the award only finds the sales person as responsible for the loss and oh a sweeping observation that the petitioner was the Manager at the relevant time and that he had held the supervising authority and, therefore, he shall also be made liable. In the appeal as well as in the revision, the liability has been confirmed on the petitioner on the only ground that he had been the Manager and, therefore, he will also be made liable.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents would join issues on the contentions raised to point out that neither in the appeal nor in the revision has the petitioner taken any objection that there was no order passed by the Arbitrator directing the impleadment, or that the impleadment could not be done beyond the period of six years from the time when the Arbitrator was appointed or when the shortage was noticed. The counsel would also urge that the loss caused was enormous namely of several tonnes of fertilizers having been lost over the period of two years and the petitioner as a person under whose direct supervision Gurbachan Singh was working as a sales person must be taken as acting in connivance with the sales person to cause the loss and, therefore, the authorities were justified in finding the petitioner as liable for the award.