SIKAR KENDRIYA SAHKARI BANK LTD Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these writ petitions a common question of law about the applicability of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 to the employees of the petitioner Bank, is involved and, therefore, I have considered it proper to dispose them of by a common order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of Writ Petition No. 4088/89 are that the non-petitioner No. 2 filed an application before the Prescribed Authority, Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 for Sikar District on March 30, 1989 alleging that he was in the employment of the Sikar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner Bank'), w. e. f. January 1, 1979. He had remained posted as Manager and there was no complaint against his work. He was removed from service on March 8, 1989 without any notice and without payment of salary in lieu of notice. No enquiry was held against him before termination of service and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. He claimed that the provisions of '1958 Act' were applicable and, therefore, he was entitled to relief against the respondent Bank by way of reinstatement and consequential benefits. In his application non-petitioner No. 2 has stated that his appointment was made by the respondent. Head Office of the respondent Bank was at Sikar and, therefore, the Prescribed Authority at Sikar had jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 28a of the 1958 Act. The petitioner filed a reply to this application and stated that he had remained posted in various Societies and he had not discharged his duties properly, He was given notices dated, February 27, 1987, March 21, 1987 and January 1, 1988. He was posted in the Head Office at Sikar, but, he did not give charge of the record despite notices dated, February 22, 1989 and February 27, 1989 and, therefore, by order dated March 7, 1989, he was removed from service. According to the petitioner the non-petitioner No. 2 had embezzled a sum of Rs. 1,42,389/-and a First Information Report was filed against him. He was placed under suspension and was removed from service in accordance with law. The petitioner claimed that the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to hear the case of the non-petitioner No. 2 and non-petitioner No. 2 should have filed appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. After framing the issues the Prescribed Authority recorded evidence of the parties. According to the petitioner some of the documents which were filed by the parties were not taken on record. After hearing the parties, on June 30, 1989 the Prescribed Authority passed the order, which has been impugned in this writ petition, and directed reinstatement of non-petitioner No. 2 in service with consequential benefits.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated June 30, 1989 on the ground that the non-petitioner No. 2 was not an employee of the petitioner Bank. He was an employee of Rajasthan Credit Institution Cadre Authority Ltd. , Jaipur and no claim of the non-petitioner No. 2 could have been entertained without the Cadre Authority being impleaded as a party. Moreover, under the provisions of Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had framed Preliminary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Managers Service Rules, 1977. These rules are statutory rules and, therefore, any dispute relating to the service conditions of the employees who are governed by the 1977 Rules should have been decided under the; provisions of the Rules and no application could have been entertained by the Prescribed Authority. Although, in the writ petition the petitioner has made reference to number of documents in order to show that action had been taken against non-petitioner No. 2 in accordance with the provisions of 1977 Rules, it is not necessary to refer to these details in view of the fact that during the course of hearing only the question relating to jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.