I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) (Oral) - In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the following facts are not in dispute. Respondent No. 4 who was an employee of the Abohar Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., was dismissed from service vide order dated Dec. 2, 1977. On appeal against this order by the said respondent, he was reinstated in service by respondent No. 3, the Assistant Registrar vide his impugned order dated March 16, 1978 (Annexure P. 3).
(2.) The stand of Mr. B.S. Khoji, learned counsel, on behalf of the Society now is that though the appeal before respondent No. 3 purports to have been preferred under section 68 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, yet the said section does not entitle the dismissed employee of a Cooperative Society to file an appeal against the order of the Society before the Assistant Registrar/Registrar. According to Mr. Khoji, if at all an appeal could be preferred by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 3, it could be in terms of Rule 36 of the Service Rules for the Cooperative Marketing Societies framed by the Registrar under Rule 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1956. But this rule too had been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in Hardial Singh, Manager, Shahbad Framers Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. Vs. The State of Haryana through Secretary, Cooperative, Haryana, Chandigarh and others, 1974 S.L.W.R. 815 , as ultra vires. In the face of this judgment, according to Mr. Khoji, there is no other rule or provision of law under which the said appeal can be held to be maintainable. Instead of meeting this legal position as incorporated in the petition itself, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, through their different but similar written statements, have taken an identical plea which reads as follows : "4. .... .... .... "(a) That the contents of sub-para (a) are not sustainable in law. The order of re-instatement is a valid order. Respondent No. 4 was a confirmed employee and he has been rightly reinstated."
(3.) It is thus patent that the respondents are not in a position to refer to any provision of law under which the said appeal by respondent No. 4 can be held to be maintainable.;