Allowed

Akki Alur Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited v. the Deputy Registrar of

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2024WP/113229/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an award and appellate order mandating the Bank to pay salary arrears to an employee. The High Court held that since the dispute was raised beyond the six-year limitation period under Section 70-A without condonation, the orders were barred by limitation and were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award and appellate order are quashed, and the underlying dispute raised by the employee is dismissed as barred by limitation.

Akki Alur Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs the… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC-D:136 WP No. 113229 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 113229 OF 2019 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AKKI ALUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT AKKI ALUR HANGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, SHIVAYOGI S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA BAMMIGATTI, AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER IN AKKI ALUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, AKKI ALUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581102

¶9

THE CHAIRMAN

¶10

BHARATHI H M

¶11

AKKI ALUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, AKKI ALUR, HANGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581102

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. RAMACHNDRA V. BHAT FOR SRI. PALLAVI PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:136 WP No. 113229 of 2019

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶17

THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SAVANUR SUB DIVISION, SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶18

VEERAPPA S/O GANGADHARAPPA BADIGER AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, R/AT: KUMARANAGAR, AKKI IALUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SHRIKANTH.T. PATIL FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:-

¶22

A. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BRG.NO.PANCHAYAT DAVA NO.UNiHa/ABN/ Pan.Da/4/2010-11 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M DATED 04.06.2013.

¶23

B.ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 IN APPEAL NO.374/2013 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-P, IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:136 WP No. 113229 of 2019

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The respondent No.3 raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act before the respondent No.2 stating that, the petitioner – Bank has refused to permit him to work in the Bank w.e.f. 1.4.2002, and not allowed to mark his attendance, and his salary is not paid w.e.f. 11.4.2002. The respondent No.2 by the impugned order held that, the refusal of employment to the respondent No.3 is illegal and accordingly, directed the petitioner – Bank to pay a sum of Rs.12,07,800/- towards arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.4.2002 till 31.5.2013, the date on which he attained the age of superannuation, with interest at 18% p.a.

¶28

The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by order dated 21.5.2019 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.2. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the refusal of employment by the petitioner – Bank was on 1.4.2002, and the dispute was raised in the year 2010, and the dispute having not been raised within six years from the date of cause of action was barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 70-A of the KCS Act. She further submits that the respondent No.3 had voluntarily abandoned the service, which is evident from the document annexed to the petition indicating

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC-D:136 WP No. 113229 of 2019

¶32

that, the petitioner had contested for the election of Akki Alur Grama Panchayat for the period 2010 at Annexure-Q indicating that, the respondent No.3 had filed the nomination to contest the election to the Akki Alur Grama Panchayat. She further submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is in violation of Rule 31(4) of the KCS Rules, which contemplates that the competent Authority deciding the dispute shall, after service of summons on the parties concerned, record a brief note of the evidence of the parties. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.2 confirmed by the respondent No.1 is not sustainable in law.

¶33

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents No.1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would submit that the cause of action to raise the dispute arose on 01.03.2010 when respondent No.3 submitted a representation with respondent No.2 to disburse 50% of the salary to meet the requirements of his family. Therefore, the dispute arose within the limitation prescribed. The respondent No.2 as well as Karnataka Appellate Tribunal after perusing the materials have rightly held that the respondent No.3 was refused employment illegally.

¶34

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶35

The respondent No.3 raised a dispute contending that, he was denied with employment w.e.f. 1.4.2002. It is stated that the cause of action arose to file a petition when the

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC-D:136 WP No. 113229 of 2019

¶37

¶38

arrears of salary was demanded by the respondent No.3 on 2.5.2010 and the same was denied by the petitioner – Bank. Chapter-IX of the Act deals with settlement of dispute and Section 70 of the KCS Act provides for dispute which may be referred to Registrar for decision. Section 70-A of the Act prescribes the period of limitation to raise a dispute, and it states that no dispute under Section 70 shall be entertained unless it is referred to the Registrar within six years from the date of the cause of action. Sub-Section (2) of Section 70-A of the Act provides for condoning the delay if cause of action is shown for raising the dispute within the limitation prescribed.

¶39

In the instant case, the petitioner – Bank denied employment on 1.4.2002, and the dispute ought to have been raised within six years from the date of denial of the employment. However, the respondent No.3 has not filed any application for condoning the delay in raising the dispute. Therefore, the dispute having been raised after six years, the respondent No.3 was required to file an application for condoning the delay for raising the dispute. The respondent No.3 had not filed an application showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay in raising the dispute. In the absence of any sufficient cause shown for condoning the delay, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 and confirmed by the respondent No.1 is contrary to Section 70A of the Act, and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:136 WP No. 113229 of 2019

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The petition is allowed.

¶43

ii) The impugned award dated 4.6.2013 vide Annexure-M passed by the respondent No.2 and the impugned order dated 21.6.2019 in Appeal No.374/2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, at Annexure-P, are hereby quashed.

¶44

iii) The disputed raised by the respondent No.3 is dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

BKM

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74 Corrected.

Akki Alur Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited v. the Deputy Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akki Alur Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited v. the Deputy Registrar of

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

Bharmana Kallappa Parit Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekar D Kambalekar Vs the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka

Faridayasmin D/O Mohammedgous Khaji Vs the Chief Administrative Officer

Harihar Rao S/O. Raghunathrao Patwardhan Vs the Land Tribunal

Guru Siddeshwara Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs Smt Sumangala

Mahadev Mallappa Katkar Vs the State of Karnataka