101+524 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. CM-6606-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-6-2004 Registrar Co-operative Societies, Union Territory, Chandigarh ..Applicant Versus Hem Raj and others ....Respondents

2.

LPA-7-2004 (O&M)

Date of decision: 16.09.2025 Registrar Co-operative Societies, Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Applicant Versus Super Bazar Chandigarh employees Union(Regd.) and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Ms. Madhu Dayal, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Ekakshra Mahajan Mandhar, Panel Counsel for the non-applicant-appellant(s)-U.T., Chandigarh.

Mr. Ajay Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.6 in LPA-6-2004.

Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for applicant-respondents in LPA-6-2004.

Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 in LPA-7-2004.

Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.11 (EPFO).

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J (Oral):

CM-6606-LPA-2025 Prayer in the present application filed under Section 151 CPC is for fixing an actual date of hearing in the main appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

By consent of parties appeal is taken today itself.

Main Case

1. This order shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals since common questions of facts and law are involved in the same. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from LPA-6-2004.

2. In the present Letters Patent Appeal by which, judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2003 has been challenged, whereby the order passed by the Chandigarh Administration dated 10.10.2000 (Annexure P-9) and 02.11.2000 (Annexure P-10), as well as the order dated

15.03.2001 (Annexure P-12) were set aside.

3. Before deciding the issue with regard to the validity of the order dated 28.03.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge, certain facts may be noticed. Respondents herein were the employees of the Central Co-operative Consumers Store limited Chandigarh which is also known as Super Bazar (hereinafter referred as society). Vide order dated 02.11.2000, which was for winding up of the society, and the notice was printed in Tribune vide which the Liquidator had terminated the services of the employees working therein. Against the said orders, appeals bearing i.e. Appeal No.363 of 2000, Appeal No.364 of 2000, Appeal No-367 of 2000 and Appeal No.367-A of 2000 were preferred qua the winding up as well as of termination of the services of the employees, before the Secretary Cooperation Duty Chandigarh, which, appeals came to be dismissed on 15.03.2001. All these aforesaid orders were challenged by the aggrieved employees of the society before the learned Single Judge and ultimately the same were set aside vide judgment dated 28.03.2003, keeping in view the detailed reasons given therein. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been impugned in the present Bunch of LPA which are pending for the last more than two decades for adjudication.

4. It may briefly be stated that, as the judgment of learned Single Judge was stayed, the winding up proceedings of the society were undertaken and a Committee constituted by this Court was made in charge of disposing of the properties of the society and the properties were ultimately sold and the proceeds thereof were deposited with the Bank in a fixed deposit, so that, the said amount generate interest as well.

5. Thereafter, the question arose as to how the said generated amount is to be utilized, for which, as per order dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Coordinate Bench, entrusted the task of deciding various claims and distribution of assets to Mr. Justice (retd.) G.C. Garg, who was appointed as official Provisional Liquidator.

6. The said official Provisional Liquidator has submitted eleven interim reports with regard to the action taken for utilizing the money which was received as a sale proceeds of the assets belonging to the society and according to the interim report seven, the P