Decided on March 01,2013

Uttarakhand Cooperative Bank Limited Appellant


BARIN GHOSH, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submit that they have no objection to the application for condonation of 41 days delay in filing the appeal being allowed. We have also considered the averments made in the application made therefor and being satisfied with the reasons furnished, allow the application (CLMA No. 1224 of 2013).
(2.) APPELLANT is a Society registered under the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 or should be deemed to be so registered. Miscellaneous provisions have been provided in Chapter -15 of the Act. Section 126 contained in Chapter - 15 of the Act authorises the Registrar to annul any resolution passed by the Committee of Management or General Body of any registered Cooperative Society or cancel any order passed by an officer of a Cooperative Society, only when the same is not covered by the objects of the Society or is in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or bylaws of the Society. Respondent no. 3 was a paid employee of the appellant Society. His services were terminated. In purported exercise of power under Section 126 of the Act, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies directed the appellant Society to frame Service Rules pertaining to its employees. That has not yet been framed. Without framing the Rules, the services of respondent no. 3 were terminated. Once again, in purported exercise of power under Section 126 of the Act, the Deputy Registrar of 2 Cooperative Societies has stayed the order dismissing the respondent no. 3 from service. In a writ petition filed by the appellant, it was contended that the Deputy Registrar or the Registrar had no such power and, accordingly, the stay of the dismissal order is of no effect. The writ petition has been disposed of by the order under appeal staying the operation of the order of the Deputy Registrar for a period of two months with liberty to the parties to take action in accordance with law.
(3.) THE fact remains that the Act nowhere obliges a registered Cooperative Society to frame any Service Rules of its employees. The Act does not give any direction pertaining to engagement or disengagement of employees by registered Cooperative Societies. It was never the case of respondent no. 3, nor it was the case of respondent no. 3 before the learned Single Judge or before us that the objects of the Society have any remote connection with engagement or disengagement of employees by the appellant Society. Section 128 of the Act, also contained in Chapter - 15 of the Act, authorises the State Government to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. It is not the contention that the State Government has made any Rules prescribing the service conditions of the employees of registered Societies and there has been any infraction thereof by the appellant Society in relation to dismissal of respondent no. 3. At the same time, it is not the contention of respondent no. 3 that the bylaws of the appellant Society were breached while the order of dismissal of respondent no. 3 was passed. That being the situation, purported exercise of power by the Deputy Registrar purportedly under Section 126 of the Act was straightaway interferable. The same having not been done beyond two months from the date of the impugned order, we are constrained to interfere and, accordingly, allow the appeal and modify the order under appeal by allowing the writ petition and, thereby, quashing the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar. It is made clear that this order will not prevent respondent no. 3 to assail the order of dismissal in such form and before such forum as she may be advised. While parting, we direct the State Government in its cooperative department to issue a Circular directing Registrar and Deputy Registrar not to interfere with the disciplinary matters of Cooperative Societies registered or deemed to be registered under the Act.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.