Partly allowed

Divyajothi Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. v. the Deputy Registrar

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2022WP/47698/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an Appellate Tribunal order directing reinstatement of an employee against a cooperative society. The Court held that the core grievance was denial of fair opportunity. It remanded the matter to the FRST Respondent to decide on merits within three months, with final disposal within four months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned tribunal order and First Respondent's order quashed; dispute restored for reconsideration within three months to be disposed in four months.

Divyajothi Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs the… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.47698/2017 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

DIVYAJOTHI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.39, 8^TH F MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. C PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND :

¶10

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-2 8^TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU -3.

¶11

SRI.J.S.JAGADISH S/O H.S.SHIVASHANKARAIAH, R/AT NO.593, 20^TH CROSS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶12

... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI. P. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. KAVITHA H.C., HCGP FOR R1)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

¶15

¶16

THE FINAL ORDER DATED 29.06.2017 IN APPEAL NO.536/2011 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank which had

¶20

employed the second respondent before his removal from service on 24.06.2000, has impugned the order dated 29.06.2017 in Appeal No.536/2011 on the file of

¶21

the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'the Appellate Tribunal' ]. The Appellate Tribunal, by the impugned order, has set aside the first respondent's order dated 21.08.2010 in No.DRB2/DIS/MD/05/2000-01 with a direction to the

¶22

petitioner to reinstate the second respondent and pay back wages restoring all service conditions. This Court has granted the interim order on 10.09.2018, and this interim order continues to be in operation.

¶23

¶24

It is not disputed that the second respondent entered service with the petitioner as a 'daily wager' in the year 1989 and as of the commencement of the year 2000, he was working with the petitioner as a First Divisional Assistant . The second respondent asserts that he was in permanent employment with the petitioner as a 'First Divisional Assistant’ attending to his responsibilities, and the petitioner contends that the second respondent had continued in service but only as a temporary employee .

¶25

3. If this is one segment of the controversy, the

¶26

other segment is because the petitioner asserts that the second respondent is justifiably removed from service without enquiry on 24.06.2000 as he had remained unauthorizedly absent during the period between 03.03.2000 to 27.05.2000. The second respondent contends that, for certain reasons, he was not permitted to sign the attendance register and sent back taking his

¶27

¶28

signatures on blank papers which are fabricated to read as an admission of guilt. The second respondent adds that his termination is illegal and motivated; he is acquitted of the allegations of misappropriation in the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.9468/2003¹ on the file of the I Additional CMM, Bengaluru and that petitioner is also unsuccessful in the dispute in No.DRB-2/ D/ 412/2004-05 under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959.

¶29

Further, Sri C. Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that apart from the above, this Court must consider the second respondent's grievance before the Tribunal. The second respondent had canvassed before the Tribunal that he was denied due opportunity by the first respondent and even if the second respondent could prevail, he could have been entitled for an opportunity and not for reinstatement

¶30

1 The judgment in these proceedings is dated 30.08.2010

¶31

¶32

and there should have been a remand for

¶33

reconsideration.

¶34

Sri P. Anand, the learned counsel for the second respondent, would rely upon certain set of recommendations preceding the Government Order dated 14.10.1999 granting approval for proposed cadre strength and pay scale as also prior communication dated 8.4.1999, including the details as furnished by the petitioner, to contend that the second respondent was in permanent employment, but the learned counsel cannot dispute that his principal grievance before the Tribunal was denial of fair opportunity.

¶35

This Court, in the light of these submissions on the merits of the Appellate Tribunal's order directing reinstatement with payment of back wages and other service benefits and because essential questions have not been considered, is of the considered opinion that the Appellate Tribunal's order must be quashed to such

¶36

¶37

extent and the parties relegated before the first respondent for complete adjudication after due opportunity. It is stated that the second respondent is now aged about 58 years and would be attaining the age of superannuation over the next two years. The dispute has lingered without a definite conclusion for over more than a decade. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable for this Court to call upon the first respondent to decide the case on merits within a timeline after extending due opportunity and with the observation that the first respondent will have to necessarily consider the aspects mentioned in the course of this order. Hence, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(a) The petition is allowed in part

¶40

and the Appellate Tribunal's impugned order dated 29.6.2017 in Appeal No.536/2011 and the first respondent’s order dated 21.8.2010

¶41

¶42

in Case No.DRB-2/DIS/MD/05/2000-01 are quashed.

¶43

(b) The aforesaid dispute in Case No. DRB-2/DIS/MD/05/2000-01 is restored for reconsideration in the light of this Court's observation within an outer limit of three [3] months from the date of first appearance of the parties.

¶44

¶45

(d) The first respondent shall dispose

¶46

of the dispute within an outer limit of four months from the date of first appearance.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

AN/-, SA

Divyajothi Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. v. the Deputy Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divyajothi Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. v. the Deputy Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Allugundaiah Vs M/S Aishwarya Developers

M/S Aishwarya Dept Bakery Vs Smt Y P Hemamalini Reddy

M/S Affinity Real Estate Private Limited Vs the State of Karntaka

Smt Hemavathi Vs M/S Megacity(Bengaluru) Developers and Builders

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Venkatesh

Gadigeppagowda Vs State of Karnataka