Noharlal Verma v. District co-operative central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur & Ors.

Aggrieved by the said order dated 07.08.1998, the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur filed a second appsal before the Madhya 'which Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal was numbsred as Second Appeal No.560 of 1999 and by judgment dated 22.01.2001 e said Tribunal altowed the appeal and set askle the ordsr passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative SocieUes, Kanker on 18.05.1994 as well as the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Soci^ies, Raipur on 07.08.1998. Aggrievedby Uie said judgment datsd 22.01.2001 of the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal in Second Appeal NQ.STO of 1999 the petitioner has fited this writ petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India. On 07.03.2001, this Court while issuing notices to the respondents 3. stayed the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2001 passsd by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal.

The result is that ^^^^^.^^S^IS^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^•ffi^fl£t^^^^^^^^^^^^:g^^iig^^-t^ A v^:..,:a<i i; f,' M: ^:: / s L •es- petitioner continued to serve as a Manager in the LAMPS under the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., The District CooperaUve C-sntrat Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur, however, has filed an app!ication {M.CAO.P.No.760 of 2004] for vacaUng Uie said interim order of sfay. On 16.02.2005 the Court called for the records of the Tribunal and Jagdalpur. the Courts and the said records have been received by ttie Registry in ttie meanwhile. At the hearing Mr. H.B. ^rawal, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the 4. petitioner submitted that a reading of ttie impugned juc^ment of tfte Tribunal would show ftat the Tribunal has taken a view that after the Revenue Board, Gwalior passed the ordsr dated 14.06.1990 dismissing the appeal No.80-1/87 of the petitioner and confirming fte order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperath/e Societies, Jagdalpur dated 19.02.1986 by which ths Joint Registrar, Coopsrative Societies, Jagdalpur had d'smissed the application of ths petitioner dated 08.10.1985 against the order of removal, the second application of the petitioner against Uie order of remova! was barred by resjucScata as providsd in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Mr. Agrawal vehemenUy submitted that this was totally an erroneous view as Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not appty to an application filed by the petittoner under Section 55 of the Act against an order of removal. He further submitted that ttie application of the petitioner dated 08.10.1985 against the order of removal was dismissed by the Joint Registrar, CooperaSve Societies, Jagdalpur District by order dated 19.02.1986 on the ground that ft was the application of barred by time. the petffioner was not considered on merits. He further submitted that the other application of the petitioner dated 30.06.1982 was entertained and registered by the Deputy Registrar, Kanker with the consent of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur and therefore, the limitatton as provided in Section 55(2) of e Act did not apply. Mr. ^rawa! cited the decision of the Supreme Court in S.M. Nilajkar and others vs.

Telecom District Hence, Manager, Karnataka reported in 2003(2) MPU 529 wherein it has been held that there is no limtetion prescribed for reference of a dispute to an Industrial Tribuna!. il • ;|i i!:'J li^ 1^. :^is"^^!j^g||^|;|jj^^^j^^^^^j^^^^^^^^ ?-'a / .<"' '§^3P^^3^^ 'ST^S^SSSSS-i'-y •'s^«<'iF^®i'5W~t'~;'? ••.^'"/-"i'sss's^S's Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned counset appearing for respondent No.1 , 5. on the other hand, submitted that it would be clear from e provisions of Section 55(2) of the Act that the Registrar shal! n<rt entortain any dispute unless presented to him within 30 days from the date of order sought to be impugned and in this case both the applications filsd by e petitioner against the order of removal dated 29.04.1982 were filed before the Registrar aflsr <he expiry of 30 days from the date of order of removat. He further submitted that the Madh^i Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal was right in taking a view that the second chatlenge to the very same order of removal coutd not have been entertained after the firet the petitioner by the Re'/enue Board, ehatlenge was declded against Gwalior in view of the principles of resjudicata as contained in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

He also cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Ragho Singh vs Mohan Singh and Others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 717 wherein it has been held that when the appealis filed beyond the time it has to be dismissed in ttie absence of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of detay in filing the appeal. Section 55(2) of the Act atong wift the tuvo provisos thereto are

In the pressnt case the order of removal was passed on 29.04.1982 and the petitioner filed an application on 30.06.1982 against rsmovat before fte Jolnt Registrar, Cooperative the said order of Societies, Raipur. The case of the petitioner is not that he was entitled to time up to 30.06.19ffi under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 55 of the Act for obtalning the certified copy of fte ordsr of removal. This appricationwas thus beyond the period of 30 days and the Registrar or the Officer to whom the applicatlon was referred to could not have entertained the dispute in view of the clear bar contained in the first proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 55 of the Act. Hence, assuming that ttie provisions of Sectton 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to the res jwScata were not applicable and the adjudication of the appeal No.80-1/87 by the Revenue Board, Gwalior and ths other applicatton of the petitioner filed on 1 1.10.1985 against the very same order of removal before the Joint Rsgistrar, CooperaGve Societies, Jagdalpur did not constitute a bar for a fresh adjudication, the apptication of the petitioner filed on 30.06.1982 against ttie order of removal dated 29.04.1^2 was also barred by time under the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 55 of the Act.

Disputes Act does not provkle for a limitation for raising the dispute, it does not mean that the dispute ran be raised at any fime and w'rthout regard to the delay and reasons therefor. There te no limitetion prescribed for reference of disputes to an Industria! Tribunai; even so it is only reasonable that the disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed, particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen wholesale. A delay of 4 yeare in raising the dispute after even re-employment of most of the old workmen was held to bs fata! in Shaliuiar Works Ltd. In Nedungadi Bank Lid. vs. K.P. vs. Workmen (supra). MeKffiiavankutty (supra) a delay of 7 years was held to be fetal and disentiUed the workmen to any relief. In Ratan Chancha Sammanto vs. Union oflndia (supra) it was held that a casual rstrenched by the employer deprives himself of tabourer remedy available in law by delay itsetf: tapse of time resuits in losing the remedy and the right as wett.

The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in ttie case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appeliante to any relief. Although the High Court has opined that there was a delay of 7 to 9 years in raising the dispute before ttie Tribunal but we find Uie The employment of the High Court appellants was terminated sometime in 1985-86 or 1986-87. Pursuant to ttie judgment in Daily Rated Casua/ Labour vs. the Departonent was Tormulating a India (supra) Unlon of scheme to accommodate casual labourers and e appellants were justified in awaiting the outeome thereof. On 16.1.1990 they were refused to be accommodated in the Scheme. On 28.12.1890 Ihey initiated the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act followed by conciliation proceedings and then the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunai-cum-Labour Court.

We do not think that ths appellants deserve to be non- suited on the ground of delay. " factualty not correct. Regarding the submission of Mr. Agrawal that the dispute raised by 8. the petitioner against the ordsr of removat has not been decided on merits, we are of the view that once the petfttoner chose to raise a dispute with regard to the order of removat under sub-Section ^) <rf Section 55 of the said dispute could be entertained and decided only in the Act, accordance with the provisions ofttie said sub-Section (2) of Section 55 of the Act and if the first proviso to sub-SecUon (2) of Section 55 of the Act provides that such a dispute could be entertained by the Registrar or other OfRcer to whom it is referred only if it is presented withln 30 days from the date of order sought to be impugned, Vhe Registrar or such Officer had no [lm|:i;:!<'.':]|;i!rpi^a!FS!?3aBU jurisdiction whatsoevsrto entertain and decide the dispute if the same was presented bsyond 30 days from the date of impugned order.