Smt. Sarala Sukia v. State of Chhattisgarh &. others

Petitioner : Smt. Padmini Shandey Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh &others Petitioner Smt. Sarala Sukia Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh &. others W. P. No. 1805/2006 Petitioner : Rekha Oeulkar Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. No. 1806/2006 Petitioner : Smt. Sheela B. Rajan Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh A others W. P. No. 1822/2006 Petitioner : Dauwa Ram Vsrsus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh &others o ^ W. P. No. 1823/2006 Petitioner : Ram Nath Singh Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & o-tiiers W. P. No. 1824/2006 Petitioner : Chandra Bhushan Sharma Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh & others W. P. No. 1825/2006 Petitioner ; Vipin Bihari Mishra Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. No. 1826/2006 Petitioner : Ashok Kumar Upadhyaya Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh &others W. P. No. 1827/2006 Petitioner ; Ranjit Singh Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. No. 1828/2006 Petitioner : Ku. AAadhuri Gosm Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgarh <& others ^ W. P. No. 1829/2006 Petitioner : Shanshyam 5ohu Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgarh &others W. P. No. 1830/2006 Petitioner : Sankalp Yadav Ver-sus Respondents : State of Chhat!-is9arh &others W. P. No. 1853/2006 Petitioner : AAadhuri Dewangan Versus Respondents ; State of Chhaftisgarh &others W. P. No. 1858/2006 Petitioner ; Smt. Rajshree Jha Versus Respondents ; - State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. No. 1859/2006 Petitioner ; teahendra Kumar Awadhiya Versus Respondants : State of Chhatt-isgarh &others Petitioner : L. Govind Raju Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh &others W. P. No. 1861/2006 Petitioner : Yashwant Kumar Uike Versus Reapondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh & others W. P. No. 1862/2006 Petitioner : Deepesh Kumar Chakrabort/ ' Versus Respondents : State of Chhati'isgarh &others SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Ssatish K. Agnihotri. J Shri R.K. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.V.5. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate fieneral for the State. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. ORDER (11th September. 2006) The foltowing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. i.J.

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

The petitioners have fiied a brief writ petitions dehors the material facts invotved in the case. The petitioners in all petitions in para 1 have mentioned facts to the extent that the management of the society has decided to reducs the financia! expenditure of establishment of the Bonk without giviog any details of the facts. Even otherwise no case hos been made out for entertaining these petitions under the writ jurisdiction. However, it was pointed out that equally effective, efficacious alternative remedy by way of filing on ^ appeat before the Registrar Co-operative Societies as provided under Section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (for short 'The Act, 1960) is avaitab!e to the petitioners. Section 55 (1) <& (2) reads as 'under:- "55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies.- (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of emptoyment are applicable diall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf. (2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of ernployment working conditions ond disciplinary action taken by a societ/, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or ony officer appointed by him not betow -rtie rcnk of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees. Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to cbove shall not entert-ain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty dcys from the date of order sought to be impu9ned: Provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded. "

The petitioners have not wailed the alternative remedy, which appears to be effective, efficacious and the oppellate authorit/ is competent to go in detail about the facts.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks tiberty of this Court to withdrow these petitions and to move aippropriate alternative ^,y forum available to them for redressal of grievonces of petiti'oners.

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