Back
Karnataka High Court
M.Lingaraju - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 02-23-87
W.P. : 6741 of 1986
LIQUIDATION - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, Section 72 - Summary: The court addressed the workers' right to be heard before liquidation orders were passed, delay in passing the orders, allegations of mala fide exercise of power, termination of workers' services, and the court's jurisdiction to rehabilitate the co-operative societies. The court found that the workers were not entitled to be heard before the liquidation orders, there was no undue delay in passing the orders, and the allegations of mala fide exercise of power were unsubstantiated. The court also held that the termination of workers' services should be addressed under the Industrial Disputes Act and that it did not have the jurisdiction to rehabilitate the co-operative societies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions sought to quash the order of liquidation passed in respect of two Co-operative Sugar Factories. The court addressed questions regarding the workers' right to be heard before liquidation orders, delay in passing the orders, allegations of mala fide exercise of power, termination of workers' services, and the court's jurisdiction to rehabilitate the co-operative societies.
Finding of the Court:
The workers were not entitled to be heard before the liquidation orders, there was no undue delay in passing the orders, and the allegations of mala fide exercise of power were unsubstantiated. The termination of workers' services should be addressed under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the court did not have the jurisdiction to rehabilitate the co-operative societies.
Issues: Workers' right to be heard before liquidation orders, delay in passing the orders, allegations of mala fide exercise of power, termination of workers' services, and the court's jurisdiction to rehabilitate the co-operative societies.
Ratio Decidendi: The workers were not entitled to be heard before the liquidation orders, there was no undue delay in passing the orders, and the allegations of mala fide exercise of power were unsubstantiated. The termination of workers' services should be addressed under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the court did not have the jurisdiction to rehabilitate the co-operative societies.
Final Decision: The petitions were rejected, and there was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THESE petitions are disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents. They are disposed of by this common order as questions of law, and to some extent the questions of facts are common to all the petitions.
( 2 ) IN writ petition No. 6896/1986, the petitioners are workmen of Gouri- bidanur Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, represented by the employees union, both of the workers as well as the officials. In writ petition No. 6896/1986 the petitioners are workmen of Gouri Industries (Distillery) represented by Gouri Sugar Factory (Distillery) Employees' Union, by its President. The respondents are State of Karnataka, the Director of Sugar and Additional registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, Sri R. L. Jalappa, Minister for co-operation, Government of Karnataka, the Management of Gouribidanur sahakara Sakkare Karkhane (in Liquidation), the Management of Gouri industries (Distillery) represented by its partners, the Union of India, New Delhi and the Chief Director of Sugar, New Delhi
( 3 ) IN writ petitions Nos. 6741 to 6830 of 1986 one M. Lingaraju and 89 others are the petitioners and they are the workers ot the third respondent sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited of Kunthur, Kollegal in Mysore Dist rict. Respondents are the state of Karnataka, the Director of sugar and Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, the management of Sri Mahadeswara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited (in liquidation) and its liquidator. Similarly in writ petition ino. 7249 oi 1986, the petitioners are the workmen of Sri Mahadeswara Sahakara Sakkare Kaikhane limited represented by Employees' Union, Kunthur, Kollegal.
( 4 ) ESSENTIALLY in all the petitions, the prayer is to quash the order of liquidation passed in respect of these two Co-operative Sugar Factories. The additional prayer of the workers of the Co-operative Sugar Factories questioning their retrenchment need not be gone into by this Court, as it amounts to by-passing the particular legislation which governs the act of retrenchment in industry. Anything said, would otherwise pejudice the workers' right to agitate independently that question in the appropriate manner and in -ccordance with procedure prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Act.
( 5 ) IN the result, what essentially falls for determination in these cases, which are disposed of by this common order, are the following questions : (1) Whether the workers have a right to be heard before an order of liquidation is passed by the Registrar of Co operative Societies, under section 72 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') ? And if so, whether the impugned orders of liquidation passed by the second respondent in Writ Petitions Nos. 6896 and 6897 of 1986 (Annexure-A) and in Writ Petition No. 7249/1986 (Annexure-B) are to be quashed ? (2) Whether the delay in passing the order in the case of Gouribidanur sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita, vitiates that order (Annexure-A in writ petitions Nos. 6896 and 6897 of 1986) ? (3) Whether the said order at Annexure-A in the first mentioned writ petitions is vitiated as the same is instigated by the Government and the Minister for Co-operation the third respondent, and therefore, is an order resulting from mala fide exercise of power ? (4) Whether, as a consequence to the impugned orders at Annexures 'a' and 'b' in the above petitions, the termination of the workers' services is vitiated, and therefore, should be declared void ? And (5) Whether, this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, may rehabilitate the Co operative Society and set aside the liquidation ?
( 6 ) SOME of the facts are not in controversy. Such matters which are in controversy shall be adverted to with reference to the pleasings such as the statement of objections filed by the respondents or the records made available by the State.
( 7 ) MR. Subba Rao, who has submitted t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
