C.W.P. No. 11113 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11113 of 2007 Date of decision : 8.4.2008. ... The Raian Zadid Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Raian, Tehsil and District Ludhiana ................ Petitioner vs. Special Secretary, Cooperation Department (Appeals), Punjab Government and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. A.S. Grewal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 3. Sh. B.S. Sehra, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited. It has filed this writ petition to lay challenge to order dated 15.12.2006 (P-5) and order dated 3.7.2007 (P-6). After issuance of notice of motion, Sh. A.S. Grewal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sh. B.S. Sehra, Advocate has appeared for respondent No.4. Counsel for respondent No.4 states that as the dispute is only C.W.P. No. 11113 of 2007 -2- with regard to the facts, there is no necessity of filing the written statement. Counsel for the parties heard. It is apparent from the record that respondent No.4 was working as a Secretary with the petitioner. He was dismissed from service on 25.10.1996. He challenged his termination before the competent authority. He was ordered to be reinstated and the Additional Registrar (G), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, vide order dated 14.2.2005 held him entitled to get back wages and retiral benefits, as per rules. The Society laid challenge to the order referred to above by filing CWP No. 4679 of 2005, which was disposed of on 17.4.2006. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The positive finding of fact recorded by the Additional Registrar is that repeated efforts had been made to get rid off the respondent, Nachhattar Singh, and for doing so, the Managing Committee had by- passed the bye-laws and violated the rules and has accordingly found that respondent Nachhattar Singh was entitled to full back wages and other benefits. We too find no reason to take a different view. Dismissed.” Thereafter, the order passed by the Additional Registrar (G), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, became final. Respondent No.4, after waiting for some time, when the petitioner failed to make the payment C.W.P. No. 11113 of 2007 -3- of requisite amount to him, filed an execution application under Section 63-B of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') for realisation of the amount in dispute. Vide order dated 15.12.2006 (P-5), he was held entitled to an amount of Rs.7,19,717/-. The petitioner was directed to pay the abovesaid amount within one month. Relevant portion of order reads thus :- “After hearing both the parties and looking and examination of the relevant record, I come to the conclusion that in the orders of the Additional Registrar (G), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 14.2.2005 of the previous orders have been mentioned as the petitioner's services were earlier also terminated without following proper procedure and in the decision, the committee has been held responsible, it proves that the services of the petitioner were terminated with malafide intention by the Managing Committee. In this way, this dispute is continuing since 25-10-1996. In this dispute, the period from 25-10-1996 to 31-10-2004 (retirement of the petitioner) is covered. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the orders dated 17-4- 2006 has upheld the orders of the payment of the salary and other benefits (retirement benefits). In compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and Additional Registrar (G), there is no counter claim filed by the society and nor it is stated how much salary/other benefits are payable to the petitioner. It is proved that C.W.P. No. 11113 of 2007 -4- the cooperative society is lingering on to comply with the orders of the courts for its execution as the cooperative society has not given specific reply, the report of claim submitted by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana (East) for determination of payment, the petitioner is entitled for salary according to the pay scales. So, the cooperative society is directed for compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Additional Registrar (G)'s decision dated 14-2-2005. The Cooperative Society is directed to pay salary amounting to Rs.620471/- for the period from 25-10-1996 to 31-10-2004, leave encashment Rs.33172/- and gratuity Rs.66074/- totaling Rs.719717/- within one month.” The petitioner went in revision, which was also dismissed on 3.7.2007. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that in execution proceedings, The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab was not competent to determine the amount to be paid to respondent No.4 (P-5). We are not convinced with the argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner. Vide order dated 14.2.2005, the Additional Registrar (G) Cooperative Societies, Punjab, had held respondent no.4 entitled to get back wages and retiral benefits as per rules. Petitioner failed to make payment of the amount due to respondent C.W.P. No. 11113 of 2007 -5- No.4. He filed an execution application. If contention of counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it would mean that respondent No.4 will have to go in for another bout of litigation. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show to us as to how calculations made by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, when order Annexure P-5 was passed, is wrong. Except agitating technical objections, nothing has been shown to us on merits to show that calculations made are wrong and execution has wrongly been awarded in favour of respondent No.4. Once order granting back wages has become final in favour of respondent No.4, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, while exercising the powers under Section 63-B of the Act, was justified in calculating the amount and directing the petitioner to pay the same to respondent no.4. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K.C. Puri ) 8.4.2008. Judge chug