AT BILASPUR W. P No. 1802 of 2006 · Chhattisgarh High Court

Petitioner : Smt. Padmini Shandey Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh &others W. P. No. 1804/2006 Petitioner : Smt. Sarala Sukla Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. No. 1805/2006 Petitioner : Rekha Deulkar Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. No. 1806/2006 Petitioner ; Smt. Sheela B. Rajan Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. No. 1822/2006 Petitioner : Douwa Ram Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgarh &others \/ C-C W. P. No. 1823/2006 Petitioner ; Ram Nath Singh Versus Respondents : State of Chhaftisgarh A o-thers W. P. No. 1824/2006 Petitioner ; Oiandra Bhushan Sharma Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh & others W. P. No. 1825^006 Petitioner : Vipin Bihari Mishra Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgarh & others W.P. No. 1826/2006 Petitioner ; Ariiok Kumar Upadhyayd Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgnrh & o+hers W. P. No. 1827/2006 Petitioner ; Romjit Singh Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgarh & others W. P No. 1828/2006 Petitioner : Ku. Madhuri Qosm Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh & others Of W. P. No. 1829/2006 Petitioner : Shanshyam Schu Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. No. 1830/2006 Petitioner : Sankalp Yadav Versus Respondents ; Stute of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. No. 1^3/2006 Petitioner : Madhuri Dewangan Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgarhA others W. P. No. 1858/2006 Petitioner : Smt. Rajshree Jha Versus Respondents : - State of Chhatt-isgarh &others W. P. No. 1859/2006 Petitioner : Mohendra Kumar Awadhiya Versus Respondents : State of ChhattisgarhiS others W. P. No. 1860/2006 Petitioner : L. Govind Raju Versus Respondents : State of Chhatf-isgarh & others W. P. No. 1861/2006 Petitioner : Yashwant Kumar Uike Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt'isgarh & others W. P. No. 1862/2006 Petitioner : Deepesh Kumar Chakraborty Versus ^-. Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Shri R.K. Jaiswal, Advocate fof the petitioners. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate Seneral for the State. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. OR&ER (11th September, 2006) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri. J.

This batch of matters involving common question of facts and comnion question of law, thus, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

The petitjoners have filed a brief writ petitions dehors the material facts involved in the case. The petitioners in atl petitions in paro 1 have mentioned facts to the extent that the nwnagement of the society has decided to reduce the financial expenditure of establishment of the Bank without giving any details of the facts. Even otherwise no case has been made out for entertaining these petitions under the writ jurisdiction. However.it was pointed out that equally effective, efficacious altemative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the Registrar Co-operative Societies as provided under Section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (for short 'The Act, 1960) is available to the petitioners. Section 55 (1) & (2) reads as under :- "55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies.- (1) The Registror may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms cmd conditions of employment in a society or class of societies ond the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of emptoyment are applicabte shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behatf. (2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions ond disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Kegistrar or any officer appointed by him not betow the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees. Provided that the Registr'oy or the officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute untess presented to him wjthin thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned; Provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of -ttie order shall be excluded. "

The petitioners have not availed the alternative remedy, which appears to be effective, efficacious and the appellate authority is competent to go in detait about the facts.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks tiberty of this Court to withdraw these petitions and to move appropriate alternative forum availabte to them for redressal of grievances of petitioners.

A copy of this order be placed on record of other nineteen connected writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge