( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india challenging the order dated 8-4-2002 of the M. P. State Co-operative tribunal and order dated 5-11-2001 of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative societies, Bhopal by which the application of the petitioner under Section 55

(2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) has been rejected as barred by limitation.

( 2. ) THE petitioners services were terminated by order dated 14-8-1991 of the respondent No. 1. He is running from pillar to post to challenge this order but he is being shown outer door by every Court on one technical ground or the other. That is the travesty of justice. He raised the dispute and it was referred to the Labour Court on 6-5-1997 by the Assistant Labour commissioner as per law then prevailing but the Labour Court by its order dated 20-4-2000 directed return of the "statement of claim" to the petitioner on the ground that it has no jurisdiction and the remedy should be pursued under the provisions of the Act. That was done in view of the change in the legal position as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in R. C. Tiwari vs. M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, AIR 1997 SC 2652, in which it has been held that the employee should seek his remedy under the act and not by reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The "statement of claim" was returned to the petitioner on 19-7-2000 and he presented the same on 5-8-2000 before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative societies, Bhopal under Section 55 (2) of the Act. It has been rejected by a cryptic order as barred by limitation and the Deputy Registrar in the impugned order dated 5-11-2001 has held that he has no power to condone the delay. That order has been upheld by the M. P. Co-operative Tribunal.

( 3. ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order must be set aside and the Deputy registrar should be directed to decide the dispute on merits. The order directing the return of the statement of claim was passed by the Labour Court on 20-4-2000 but it was actually returned on 19-7-2000. The endorsement on the "statement of claim" for returning the same for presentation to the proper court was made on 19-7-2000 (Annexure P-4 ). Order 7 Rule 10 (2), CPC provides that on returning a plaint the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. Though this provision of the Civil procedure Code may not apply protanto the principle engrafted therein would apply. It is only after such endorsement the statement of claim could be returned for presentation to the proper Court. It has been held by Madras high Court in Moneys Transports Vs. Tanjore, AIR 1979 Madras 196, that the requirements of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 7 are mandatory and without the endorsement required by the sub-rule the plaint can not be returned and can not be presented to the proper Court. The Allahabad High Court has also held in Islam Shah Vs. Wali Mohammad, AIR 1971 All. 473, that on return of plaint the plaintiff is entitled to the exclusion of time till an endorsement of return is made under Order 7 Rule 10 (2), CPC.

( 4. ) THE proviso to Section 55 (2) of the Act lays down the limitation period of thirty days "from the date of the order sought to be impugned". In this case the order of termination which was impugned is dated 14-8-1991 but the petitioner has been prosecuting his remedy under the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 in light of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in rashtriya Khadan Vs. Presiding Officer, 1975 MPLJ 583 (FB), and reiterated in subsequent decisions. The legal position changed in 1997 after the decision of the Supreme Court in R. C. Tiwaris case. Therefore, as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 th