C.M. Lodha, C.J. - (1.) THESE are connected special appeals under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against a common order dated May 7, 1997, by a Single Judge of this Court, who set aside the order dated February 17, 1976, passed by the Administrator, Nagaur Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., Nagaur, retrenching the petitioners from service. Shri H.M. Parekh, learned counsel for the respondents (who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondents entered at the stage of admission of the appeals and submitted that the appeals are liable to be dismissed summarily. Notice to show cause, why the appeals be not admitted was issued to other two parties to the appeals also, viz., the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Rajasthan and the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Nagaur. Notice on the Assistant Registrar was served but he did not appear Notice to the Registrar was not received after service. However, since the contesting parties to she appeals are the employees, we have heard the counsel for the appellant Bank and the counsel for the respondent employees at length. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass & may be stated as below: The respondents were in the service of the Nagaur Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. (registered under the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act, 1965, (which will hereinafter be referred to as "the Act",) as clerks. The Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Nagaur, was appointed as Administrate under section 36 of the Act to manage the affairs of the Bank. By his order dated September 15, 1975, masked Annexure 1, the Administrator, ordered that the services of the respondents along with a few others, totalling 12, be retrenched with effect from September 15, 1975. This order was issued by the Administrator of his own accord But, subsequently, it appears, that he obtained the approval of the Register in this respect and in supersession of his earlier order dated September 15, 1975 the Administrator issued a fresh order dated February 17, 1976 masked Annexure 2, wherein it was mentioned that he had obtained the approve of the Registrar, Co -operative Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur, be retrenched with immediate effect. It was mentioned in the order Annexure 2 that the payment of salary upto March 16, 1976 to the retrenched employees had been sanctioned and so also compensation at the rate of 15 days' average pay for each year of service.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order Annexure 2, the five employees filed separate writ petitions. It was alleged therein that the petitioners are workmen within the definition of the term contained in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had been in continuous service for not less than one year and, therefore, they could not be retrenched until they had been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice had expired or the workman had been paid in lieu of such notice the wages for the period of notice and also at the time of retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days' average pay for each completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months and since these conditions had not been complied with as envisaged by section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, their retrenchment was illegal, void and liable to be set aside. The Bank contested the writ petitions filed by the employees and also filed a written reply. It was urged that the writ petitions were not maintainable in as much as no writ of mandamus could lie against a co -operative society registered under the Act. It was also urged on behalf of the Bank that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of a reference under section 10 of the Act as also a remedy of arbitration under section 75 of the Act. Lastly, it was contended that there had been no contravention of the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge, however, held that the Administrator appointed by the Registrar, under section 36 of the Act for the purpose of managing the affairs of the Co -operative Society is a public servant, who is required to exercise his functions subject to the control of the Registrar and will be deemed to be a public servant as provided under section 136 of the Act. The learned Judge went on to observe that the Administrator functions as a statutory authority & any order passed by him in exercise of the statutory powers &, therefore, a writ of mandamus can be issued against him. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge held that the writ petitions were maintainable.;