Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) After several adjournments, this writ petition had come up for hearing on 14.2.2003 and was dismissed in the absence of counsel for petitioner, after hearing Sri Devendra Dahma, counsel for contesting respondent-workman. On an application made by counsel for petitioner pleadings personal difficulties in attending the Court on 14.2.2003, the order, dismissing the writ petition, was recalled on 25.2.2003, and that after hearing counsel for both the parties, the judgment was reserved.
(2.) Petitioner is a society registered under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. Respondent No. 3 Lalta Prasad Singh, was appointed as kamdar in the society in the year 1963 and worked as Secretary of the Society from 1972 to 18.6.1977. It is alleged that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 21,263.78 p. for which a first information report was lodged against him on 8.8.1978 and the same has been registered as case Crime No. 145 under Section 409, I.P.C. The said case was transferred for investigation by Cooperative Cell of Civil Police. The matter with regard to the recovery of amount was referred to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, U. P. at Gorakhpur, who appointed District Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Deoria as Arbitrator. Respondent No. 3 did not appear before the Arbitrator inspite of service of notice on which proceedings were closed and an ex parte decree for recovery of the aforesaid amount was passed. He filed an appeal under Section 98 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, against the award. The Cooperative Tribunal U. P., Lucknow, found that the arbitrator, instead of entering into reference, proceeded to consider the matter on the administrative side collecting information about the first information report. Sri Lalta Prasad Singh respondent-workman had appeared before him and prayed for adjournment. On 20.9.1980, his statement was recorded which went on to prove that he had deposited a part of the amount and had claimed adjustment of certain amounts and thus indirectly admitted the liability to the tune of Rs. 5,307.78 p. The case was kept pending by arbitrator between 1980 and 1987 for the reasons which are not known, and thereafter he recorded a finding that Sri Lalta Prasad Singh could not answer the question or produce any evidence and made an award in favour of society. The Tribunal found that there was a detailed statement of Sri Lalta Prasad Singh on record and that the entire procedure adopted by the arbitrator was incorrect. The award was given without application of mind and was premeditated. The appeal was accordingly allowed and while setting aside the award, the suit was decreed for recovery of Rs. 5,307.78p and for rest of the claim, the matter was remanded to the Deputy Registrar for recording a fresh order of reference to a competent authority. It was also directed that the suit shall proceed only after deposit of Rs. 500 with the District Co-operative Bank concerned as security for payment to the defendant and in the event of failure of suit towards the costs. It was also directed that the defendant, if he contests that suit, shall also be entitled to his travelling expenses from the place of his ordinary residence and the same shall be taxed in the decree, if so awarded. Thereafter it appears that the matter has not been considered and finalised by the arbitrator. Both the parties were not able to inform about the status of proceedings as well as the criminal case.
(3.) The services of respondent-workman were terminated on 19.6.1977 on the ground of alleged defalcation. He approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner for conciliation after which the matter was referred by the State to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, on 19.12.1996 for adjudication. The labour court sent a notice to the petitioner by registered post. By an order dated 5.7.1999, the Court, after narrating the case of workman-respondent No. 3 in para 2, finding that employer has not filed any written statement, nor any one appeared on its behalf, made the award under Rule 12 (19) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and directed reinstatement with entire back wages with all consequential benefits with costs of Rs. 100.;