Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg
LPA No.216 of 2015 (O&M)
Balbir Singh
v.
Moga Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Moga & Ors.
{Decided on 21/09/2015}
For the Appellant:Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate.
Headnote:Co-operative Societies--Bye Laws would prevail over Statutory Rules--Therefore, the conditions in the byelaws that the Manager of the Cooperative Bank can pass an order of punishment are binding on the employees.
(A) Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963, S.8--Bye Laws would prevail over Statutory Rules--Held; The byelaws framed with the approval of the Government or by any authority in terms of the statute under Section 8 of the Act have the force of a statute--Therefore, the conditions in the byelaws that the Manager of the Society can pass an order of punishment are binding on the employees--The employee cannot be permitted to dispute the order of punishment passed by an authority specified under the byelaws--Punjab Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules. (Para 14)
(B) Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963, S.8--Bye Laws--Scope of--Even though the Punjab Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules are applicable to State Cooperative Bank or a Central Cooperative Bank, but the Rules are generic in nature applicable to all State Cooperative Banks or Central Cooperative Banks, whereas the byelaws approved by the Registrar are specifically applicable to the respondent-Bank--It is well-settled that special law will prevail over the general law--Even on the said basis, the byelaws framed in exercise of the statutory powers will have preference over the generic rules framed by the Registrar. (Para 13)
Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.11.2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant challenging the Award dated 21.12.1993 was dismissed.
2. The appellant was appointed as a Daftri by the Board of Directors of Moga Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (for short ‘the Bank’) on 04.12.1956. However, he was dismissed from services on 22.05.1988 after conducting the departmental proceedings. The appellant filed a statutory appeal before the Managing Director, which was not decided. Thereafter, the appellant raised an Industrial Dispute by serving a demand notice. The dispute was referred to Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide award dated 21.12.1993 held that the appellant is not entitled either to reinstatement or compensation. It was found that Bye-law 41(B) of the Bank unambiguously recites that Manager, in addition, would have power to appoint, suspend, reinstate, punish Class IV employees including Peons, Chowkidars, Gunman, Malies and Daftries etc. The writ petition against the said Award stands dismissed.
3. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that it is Punjab Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules, which are applicable to the Bank. Such Rules are statutory Rules framed in terms of Rule 28 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (for short ‘the Rules’) by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Rule 9 of the Punjab Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules provides the Authorities empowered to impose penalty. The Board of Directors of a Central Cooperative Bank is competent to suspend, remove and dismiss the employees. Since the order of punishment has been passed by a Manager, therefore, such order is passed by an incompetent authority.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Bye-laws permitting the Manager to pass an order of punishment runs counter to the statutory Rules so framed. Therefore, it is the statutory Rule, which will prevail and not the Bye-laws, which do not have the force of law. Thus, the order of punishment has been passed by an incompetent authority. Mr. Sharma has relied upon a Single Bench judgment reported as Ujjal Singh Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation Punjab, Chandigarh & others, [2009(1) Law Herald (P&H) 396] : 2010 (5) RCR (Civil) 692 to contend that the Byelaws of the Society cannot prevail over the statutory Rules framed under the Cooperative Societies Act, as such Byelaws have no force of law.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Before considering the arguments raised, certain statutory provisions need to be extracted. The same are as under:
The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961
“8. Registration – (1) If the Registrar is satisfied –
(a) that the application complies with the provisions of this Act and the rules,
(b) that the objects of the proposed society are in accordance with section 4,
(c) that the proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the provisions of this Act and the rules; and
(d) that the proposed society has reasonable chances of success, the Registrar may register the society and its bye-laws.
(2) When the Registrar refuses to register a society, he shall communicate the order of refusal together with the reasons therefor, to such of the applicants as may be prescribed.
(3) The application for registration shall be disposed of by the Registrar within a period of two months from the date of receipt thereof by him.
85. Rules – (1) The Government may, for any co-operative society or class of such societies, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
xx xx
(xxxviii) qualifications for members of the committee
