The High Court has limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and cannot re-appreciate evidence or alter conclusions reached by competent statutory authorities unless the findings are patently erroneous and dehors the factual and legal position on record.

1. :- The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 13.2.1996 (Annexure-14) passed by the Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1958"), by which the said Authority has directed petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent-workman approached the said Authority under the Act, 1958 contending that he had worked with the present petitioner for more than six months continuously from 16.6.92 to 31.12.92; his services have illegally been terminated; he is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The Authority issued show cause notice to the present petitioner, which filed reply in response to the said notice and also made submissions before the Authority. After considering the whole case, the Authority recorded the finding of fact that respondent-workman had worked for more than six months continuously and his services had been terminated illegally, thus, he was entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The Authority also held that even if for some time the respondent-workman had been appointed by a Committee whose constitution had been defective, the same would not have any adverse effect on merit of the case by virtue of the provisions of Section 51 of the Multi-States Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1984"). Hence this petition.JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE :

3. Mr. Malik has contended that the Authority under the Act of 1958 had no competence to decide the case, or entertain the application submitted by the respondent-workman for the reason that the competence has exclusively been conferred in such a case upon the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Act, 1984. According to Mr. Malik, the provisions of Section 74 of the Act, 1984 are analoguous ad verbatim to the provisions of Section 64 of Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "Act 1960") and it provides that in matter or dispute relating to constitution, management or business of the society, the matter shall be referred to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and in the instant case, as similar provisions are there under Section 74 of the Act, 1984, the matter could have been referred to the Registrar and, thus, the Authority had no competence and impugned order is nullity for want of jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed by Mr. Malik on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sawai Madhopur Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal, 1989(2) RLR 555=1989(2) RLW 321 , wherein the Court, after considering the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, "Act 1965") held that any matter or dispute regarding employment of the employees falls within the ambit of constitution, management or business of the society and, therefore, the Registrar has the competence to decide the said dispute.

4. Similarly, in R.C. Tiwari v. Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. & ors., (1997) 5 SCC 125 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question regarding interpretation of Section 64 of the Act 1960 and held that the provisions of Section 64, as starts with non-obstente clause, would have an over-riding effect and, thus, the dispute regarding employment of any paid employee shall be dealt with by the Registrar. Section 64 of the Act, 1960 reads as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time-being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society or the liquidation of a society, shall be referred to the Registry by any of the parties to the dispute."

5. In view of the above, Mr. Malik has vehemently submitted that as the provisions of Section 74 of the Act, 1984 are analogous to the aforesaid Section 64 of the Act, 1