IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.50 of 1989 Date of decision:03.12.2009 The Binjon Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Binjon. ....Petitioner versus The Labour Court through its Presiding Officer, Gurdaspur and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement with back wages. Before the Labour Court, the workman contended that he had been employed as a Salesman/Clerk in the management Cooperative Society on 1st November, 1976 and his services were illegally terminated by resolution of the Society purported to have been passed on 13th December, 1980. The contention was that the termination made without any notice or enquiry was against the principles of natural justice and the order of dismissal was contrary to law. The management sought to contend that the workman had committed misappropriation of funds and a dispute having been raised before the Arbitrator under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act resulted in an award Civil Writ Petition No.50 of 1989 - 2 - for Rs.12,367.25. An appeal had been filed which was dismissed and a revision was also dismissed. The award given by the Arbitrator according to the management, proved the embezzlement. It was also contended in the written statement that a notice had been sent on 03.11.1980, when the workman was reported to have confessed to the embezzlement and agreed to pay the embezzled amount or furnish security for Rs.12,000/-. He was reported to have also signed in the proceeding book as an admission of his embezzlement. 2. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself and gave evidence to the effect that no notice had been given before the termination and that he had not admitted to any guilt. The Labour Court had also referred to the fact that although the management contended that the workman had responded to notice by admission of guilt based on which resolution had been passed, the original was not produced before the Court. Even the so-called admission of his guilt where the workman was said to have put his signatures in the proceeding book, was not before the Court. The photocopies of notice and resolution had been given Mark-A and Mark-B, but they were not exhibited as evidence in view of the fact that the management had no explanation to give for the non-production of the originals and the documents stood unestablished. The Labour Court found that in the absence of any domestic enquiry, the award passed by the Arbitrator fixing a particular liability itself, could not prove a misconduct. 2. In my view, the decision of the Labour Court cannot be faulted, firstly, because the scope of an enquiry in a dispute that could be Civil Writ Petition No.50 of 1989 - 3 - referred to arbitration as contemplated under Section 55 could merely address a claim by a Society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or a claim of a Society for enforcement of surety or a dispute concerning election of an officer. The nature of dispute which could be prosecuted is set forth under Section 55(2) which reads as under:- “(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1) , the following be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of cooperative society, namely- (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it form a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a society against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c ) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any Officer of the society.” 3. This proceeding for enforcement of a debt could prove a civil liability and an award passed by an Arbitrator could result in an existing liability by a member of the Society or a workman in favour of the Society. The said liability cannot be assumed to be proof of misconduct. The imputation of embezzlement and the proof as such are completely different from determination of a liability and secured through an award under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act. If the management had in response to a notice obtained an admission of guilt from the workman, that could perhaps justify an action for termination of service. This was precisely the issue which was put for adjudication before the Labour Court but the management did not avail to itself the opportunity granted to it to make proof of what it was Civil Writ Petition No.50 of 1989 - 4 - bound to do before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, therefore, reasoned that in the absence of any enquiry and in the absence of proof of alleged admission of guilt, the order of termination was illegal. On such a finding, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The award of the Labour Court is justified being in accordance with law and there is no scope for intervention in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.12.2009 sanjeev