Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 1689
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Nanak Chand, Inspector Cooperative Societies
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 2701 of 1980,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 8, 1996
A dispute between officers of a cooperative society cannot be referred to arbitration under Section 55(1)(c) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
Headnote:
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT - SECTION 55(1)(C) - ARBITRATION - DISPUTE BETWEEN OFFICERS - NOT MAINTAINABLE - SECTION 68 - APPEAL - AGAINST DECISION OR AWARD UNDER SECTION 56 - NOT APPLICABLE TO INTERIM ORDER - SECTION 69 - REVISION - NOT APPLICABLE TO JURISDICTIONAL ERROR.
Fact of the Case:
An Inspector of Cooperative Societies was added as a respondent in arbitration proceedings initiated by a member of a cooperative society against the society. The Inspector challenged the order adding him as a respondent, arguing that a dispute between officers of the society could not be referred to arbitration under Section 55(1)(c) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the dispute between the member and the society was maintainable under Section 55(1)(c) of the Act, but the Inspector could not be added as a respondent because a dispute between officers of the society was not covered by the provision. The Court further held that the Government's order adding the Inspector as a respondent was an interim order and not an appealable decision or award under Section 56 of the Act, and that the Government's revisional jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Act did not extend to jurisdictional errors.
Issues: 1. Whether a dispute between officers of a cooperative society can be referred to arbitration under Section 55(1)(c) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Government's order adding the Inspector as a respondent was an appealable decision or award under Section 56 of the Act? 3. Whether the Government's revisional jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Act extends to jurisdictional errors?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 55(1)(c) of the Act only envisages a dispute between a society and its officer. A dispute between officers of the society cannot be referred to arbitration under this provision. 2. The Government's order adding the Inspector as a respondent was an interim order and not an appealable decision or award under Section 56 of the Act. 3. The Government's revisional jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Act does not extend to jurisdictional errors.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Inspector's petition and quashed the Government's order adding him as a respondent in the arbitration proceedings. The Court also directed that the Inspector's name be deleted from the arbitration proceedings.
R.L.Anand, J.
1. Nank Chand, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Sohna, District Gurgaon, and formerly Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Gharaunda, District Karnal, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other direction quashing the order dated 7.7.1980 (Annexure P2) passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of Haryana, Cooperation Department, exercising the powers of the Government under Section 68 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short (the Act), as applicable to the State of Haryana, vide which respondent No. 1 gave directions that the petitioner be arrayed as one of the respondents in the arbitration proceedings.
2. It is alleged by the petitioner that he earlier used to work as Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Gharaunda, during the years 1968-69. Respondent No. 4 Sajjan Singh was the Secretary of the Mor Majra Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited and used to recover loans from the members of the Society and had been embezzling the same. The Mor Majra Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited (for short the Society) started recovery proceedings against respondent No. 4. Thereupon, Sajjan Singh (respondent No. 4 made a reference before the Registrar for the settlement of the dispute between him and the society by impleading the present petitioner as one of the respondents. Before the Arbitrator the petitioner raised an objection that since no dispute between an officer and an officer could be referred to the Arbitrator under Section 55 of the Act, and as such no dispute was maintainable, and as such no arbitration proceedings could be initiated against him. This contention of the petitioner was accepted by the Arbitrator, who vide order dated 13.9.1978 (Annexure P1) ordered for the deletion of the name of the petitioner as party from the arbitration proceedings. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 4 Sajjan Singh filed an appeal under Section 68 of the Act before the Government, which was allowed by respondent No. 1 without caring for the provisions of the law and the order (Annexure P1) was set aside vide order dated 7.7.1980 (Annexure P2). The petitioner alleges that it was not proper on the part of respondent No. 1 to interfere with the well reasoned order passed vide Annexure P1. It was wrong on the part of respondent No. 1 to hold that the case in hand was not a finding under Section 55(3) but a decision or order under Section 56 of the Act. Respondent No. 1 also took the erroneous view that the petitioner being an officer of the Society can be proceeded against in the arbitration proceedings, which were primarily between the Society and respondent No. 4. It has also been pleaded that no dispute was maintainable between the two officers.
3. With the above main averments, it has been prayed for the quashment of the order (Annexure P2) by restoring the order (Annexure P1).
4. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The Society, i.e., respondent No. 3, filed a written statement and it was pleaded that the present writ petition was not maintainable as no substantial right of the petitioner had been infringed. The petitioner could only challenge the award given by the Arbitrator and he had no locus standi to challenge the interim order, which had been passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner had approached the High Court with tainted hands as he had embezzled huge amount of the Society and in these circumstances the writ petition was not maintainable on the grounds of the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. It is further pleaded that the intention of the petitioner is to thwart the action, which is likely to be taken against him under the Act and in these circumstances no writ petition is maintainable when the sole purpose is to get the verdict of the Court to circumvent the provisions of the law of the land. It
