Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioners are alleging inaction on the part of the authorities of Eastern Railways in that they failed and neglected to discharge their statutory obligation cast by the provisions in section 58 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 even after the first petitioner sent the requisition dated June 24, 2004 (at page 60) asking the competent authority to deduct the demanded amount from the salary of the fourth respondent, an employee of the Eastern Railways.
(2.) At the material point of time both the fourth and fifth respondents were members of the first petitioner. The fifth respondent took a loan and for that the fourth respondent executed an agreement in the capacity of surety. In the agreement the fourth respondent clearly stated that on demand for repayment of the loan his employer, the Eastern Railways, would deduct the requisite amount from his salary in terms of the provisions in section 58. The fifth respondent failed and neglected to repay the loan in full. Consequently, the first petitioner filed a dispute case under section 95. In that the fourth respondent was not a party. An award was made and the arbitrator also clarified that the first petitioner would be at liberty to proceed under section 58. Thereupon the requisition was sent asking the employer of the fourth respondent to act in terms of section 58. Since no step was taken, the petitioners took out the present writ petition.
(3.) I do not find any merit in the argument of Counsel for the fourth respondent that in view of the provisions in section.128 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the first petitioner was not entitled to call upon the employer of the fourth respondent to deduct any amount towards repayment of the loan taken by the fifth respondent. The provisions in section 128 provide for a remedy. but there is no reason to say that they do not permit the first petitioner to proceed under section 58. In my opinion, the first petitioner is lawfully entitled to decide whether it will proceed under section 58 or under section 128. I do not find any reason to say that in view of the provisions in section 128 it was not entitled to proceed under section 58. I do not see any merit either in the contention of Counsel for the fourth respondent that in view of the award made by the arbitrator in the dispute case against the fifth respondent, there was no reason for the first petitioner to proceed under section 58. As has rightly been pointed out by Counsel for the petitioners in his award the arbitrator clarified by saying that the first petitioner would be at liberty to proceed under section 58. In any case, since the fourth respondent was not a party in the dispute case, the award was not binding on him. His obligation to repay the loan or any part thereof arose because of execution of an agreement by him as a member of the first petitioner authorising his employer to deduct any amount towards repayment of the loan.;