Back
Karnataka High Court
MANAGER, RAIBAG TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, RAIBAG, BELGAUM DISTRICT - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BELGAUM 1 - Respondent
Decided On : 10-10-06
Writ Petition No. 20033 of 2005
CASES REFERRED: ILR 2003 KAR 4858; ILR 1999 KAR 650; (1980) 1 SCC 4
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Preamble - Applicability of Act -Applies to a Co-opertive society also.
CASES REFERRED: ILR 2003 KAR 4858; ILR 1999 KAR 650; (1980) 1 SCC 4.
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 -Section 70 -Payment of gratuity -Dispute as to -Aggrieved suould approach controlling Authority appointed under Payment of Gratuity Act -Cannot raise a dispute under. Held: On meticulous perusal of Payment of Gratuity Act, it would be clear that the said enactment is a complete code by itself which contains detailed provisions covering all the essential features of the scheme for payment of gratuity, Rule 18(4) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules does not contain detailed provisions covering all the essential features of the scheme for payment of gratuity. The said Rule merely reiterates the right conferred on the employees of a society under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. It merely says that the employee of a co-operative society has got right of payment of gratuity, but does not lay down the provisions relating to procedure for quantification of gratuity. On the other hand, the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act covers all the essential features of the scheme for payment of gratuity. It creates the right of payment of gratuity, indicates when the right will accrue and lays down the provisions for quantification of gratuity. It provides further for recovery of the amount and contains provisions relating to interest at 9% p.a. to be paid by the society on delayed payment. For the enforcement of its provisions, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for appointment of a Controlling Authority under Section 3 of the said Act, which is entrusted with the task of administering the Act. The fulfilment of the rights and obligations of the parties are made his responsibility and he has been invested with an amplitude of power for the full discharge of that responsibility. Any error committed by him can be corrected in appeal by the appropriate Authority particularly constituted under the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Section 14 of the said Act clearly discloses that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act (which is a subsequent enactment) have overriding effect on other enactment. Thus the petitioner will have to approach the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and he cannot raise a dispute under Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act for getting gratuity.
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 -Rule 18(4) -Payment of gratuity -A dispute as to -Cannot be raised under. See, Kar. Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 -Section 70.
Legal Remedies - Claim for gratuity - Employee of a co-operative society claiming payment of gratuity upon his termination - raising dispute under co-operation law - Held, not proper - His proper remedy is to approach controlling Authority under payment of gratuity Act.
Cases Referred: 1986(1) Kar.L.J. 381 (DB); 2004(1) Kar.L.J. 179 (FB): ILR 2003 Kar. 4858 (FB): 2004-I-LLUJ-1085 (Kar.)(FB); ILR 1999 Kar. 650 (DB): 1999-I-LLJ-1326 (Kar.) (DB); AIR 1979 SC 1981: (1980)1 SCC 4.
Act or Rules - If Registrar is competent to direct society to pay grantuity See, Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Saction 70.
Cases Referred: 1986(1) Kar.L.J. 381 (DB); 2004(1) Kar.L.J. 179 (FB): ILR 2003 Kar. 4858 (FB): 2004-I-LLUJ-1085 (Kar.)(FB); ILR 1999 Kar. 650 (DB): 1999-I-LLJ-1326 (Kar.) (DB); AIR 1979 SC 1981: (1980)1 SCC 4.
Payment of Gratnity Act, 1972 - Section 14 - Claim for gratuity - Employee of a co-operative society claiming payment of gratuity upon his termination - Raising dispute under co-operation law - Held, not proper - His proper remedy is to approach controlling Authority under the Act.
Cases Referred: 1986(1) Kar.L.J. 381 (DB); 2004(1) Kar.L.J. 179 (FB): ILR 2003 Kar. 4858 (FB): 2004-I-LLUJ-1085 (Kar.)(FB); ILR 1999 Kar. 650 (DB): 1999-I-LLJ-1326 (Kar.) (DB); AIR 1979 SC 1981: (1980)1 SCC 4.
The orders at Annexures-H and J are called in question in this writ petition.
2. Respondent 3 was working as Secretary in petitioner-Bank during the period 1-1-1961 to 18-10-1976. While he was working as Secretary, he misappropriated certain sums of money belonging to the society. Then the petitioner-Society instituted proceedings under Section 69 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies against the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed the order dated 30-1-1988 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14,969.69 paise with future interest on principle amount. The said order is confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 29-12-1989 in Appeal No. 353 of 1988. The order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 20476 of 1991 (disposed of on 26th May, 1997). In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner-Bank filed execution petition in E.P. No. 646 of 1991 for recovery of Rs. 14,969.69 and interest. The same is pending before concerned authority.
3. In view of the misappropriation of the amount, the third respondent was kept under suspension on 27-8-1976 and after holding enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 29-1-1977. The order of dismissal was approved by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 20-7-1979. Accordingly, the order dated 16-8-1979 was issued by the petitioner-Bank. In the meanwhile, the Common Cadre Authority was established on 1-10-1978. It seems the third respondent approached Common Cadre Authority for redressal and the Common Cadre Authority withheld the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner-Bank as approved by Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 42580 of 1982 (Raibag Taluk Co-operative Primary Land Development Bank Limited v J.G. Suryavanshi and Others1) before this Court challenging the order passed by the Common Cadre Authority. This Court allowed the writ petition on 8-4-1986 and consequently the order of Common Cadre Authority was set aside. The third respondent challenged the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 42580 of 1982 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. 5748 of 1986, which was ultimately numbered as Civil Appeal No. 2582 of 1986. The appeal came to be dismissed on 18-2-1991, as could be seen from Annexure-C. Thus the order of dismissal of third respondent was approved by Hon'ble Apex Court also.
4. When the facts stood thus, the third respondent filed application under Rule 18(4) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 praying for payment of gratuity before the Common Cadre Authority. Based on such application, the Common Cadre Authority directed the petitioner-Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 49,908/- towards gratuity. The copy of the letter of Common Cadre Authority is produced at Annexure-F to the writ petition. Subsequently based on such a letter, the third respondent raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act claiming the aforesaid amount of gratuity. The first respondent passed the award as per Annexure-H on 27-6-2002 for a sum of Rs. 1,43,355/-. The said order is confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 16-4-2005 in Appeal No. 832 of 2002. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
5. At the time of hearing, learned Senior Advocate Sri Padmanabha Mahale appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised a preliminary question relating to maintainability of dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act before the Arbitrator for claiming the gratuity. According to him, the proceedings relating to payment of gratuity ought to have been initiated under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as the said Act is a self-contained code by itself for dealing with questions relating to payment of gratuity. The said contention is opposed by Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned Advocate appearing on
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
