BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dispute between the Co-operative Society respondent No. 3 and Gurdere Singh Bahia, respondent No. 4 as also Tarsem Lal respondent No. 5 was referred for arbitration by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Moga in exercise of power under section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The Arbitrator fixed the liability of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in a certain proportion. Tarsem Lal, seemingly was content with the said award. Gurdev Singh Bahia respondent No. 4, however, filed an appeal before the Assistant Registrar against the said award. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision. Thereupon, the Arbitrator framed a fresh award in which the liability of Gurdev Singh Bahia was put at a low figure and that of Tarsem Lal at a high figure, the details of which we are not concerned with. But this time Tarsem Lal filed an appeal before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies who on 3rd May, 1976 vide order Annexure P.1 partially allowed the same inasmuch as the liability of Tarsem Lal was cut down by Rs.1000/-. The view taken was that Tarsem Lal was a poor person and hit hard for no fault of his but all the same the President of the Society (the present petitioner) should be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the Society. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

(2.) The sole contention raised by Mr. Mongia, the learned counsel for the petitioner is well merited; being that no dispute stood referred by the Assistant Registrar between the petitioner and the Society and thus no liability could be shifted over to the petitioner. Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the Society has not been able to dispute this proposition but has at the same time contended that the petitioner all the same had been associated in the proceedings and as such he cannot dispute his liability. It is plain that a dispute which may be referred for arbitration has to fall in one of the categories as mentioned in section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Reference has to be specific as also to the parties involved therein. Concededly, the dispute was referred but was not in relation to the petitioner's involvement. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, Annexure P.1 is wholly without jurisdiction so far as the petitioner is concerned and is thus partially quashed so far as his affectation is concerned relating to Rs. 1000/-. However, it is left open to the Co-operative Society to take such steps as it may deem fit to cause recovery thereof in accordance with law. This petition accordingly is allowed but with no order as to costs.