AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard Sri. Anand Bagewadi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned AGA appearing for R2.
This Court by order dated 06.01.2015 had directed this writ petition to be posted along with W.P. No. 85368/2013 which writ petition has been filed by 1st respondent herein and two others calling in question the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal and Prl. District Judge, Belgaum, dated 07.09.2013 in K.P.E.I. (EAT) Appeal No. 19/1991 whereunder the appeal filed by the 1st respondent came to be allowed in part and order passed by the Management terminating the services of appellant therein i.e., 1st respondent herein came to be set aside and order for reinstatement to his original post with a direction to pay 40% of arrears of salary as backwages from 06.06.1991 till date of reinstatement came to be passed. Since, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 85368/2013 that order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in K.P.E.I. (EAT) Appeal No. 19/1991 has been challenged in W.P. No. 85368/2013, present writ petition was ordered to be posted along with W.P. No. 85368/2013 Accordingly, it has been posted.
In this writ petition, the petitioner - judgment debtors 1 to 3 in Execution No. 241/2014 have sought for quashing of the entire execution proceedings on the ground that individuals who are not parties to original proceedings have been arrayed as parties in the execution proceedings and as such, it is not maintainable. It is contended that in Appeal No. 19/1991 1st respondent - Society is said to have been represented by its President, Sri. Hanamant S/o. Rudrawwa Jagadar, Shri Mahadev P. Bhajantri and Vijaya S. Joshi as President, Secretary and in-charge Principal respectively and order having been against them, execution proceedings initiated against Shri Ashok B. Naik as President of the first JDR Society, Shri Bhimanagouda Ramachandra Naik, as Secretary of the first JDR Society and Shri S.M. Aralimatti depicted as Principal of first JDR Society is not maintainable and there is no order against these three persons, execution proceedings cannot be maintainable. The order passed by Educational Appellate Tribunal dated 07.09.2013 in Appeal No. 19/1991 would indicate that Shriyuths Hanamant, Mahadev P. Bhajantri and Vijaya S. Joshi had been arrayed as representing the first JDR Society, as President, Secretary and in-charge Principal and execution proceedings has been initiated by successful Appellant (former teacher of first JDR Society) in order to enjoy the fruits of order passed in Appeal No. 19/1991. In the said execution proceedings, names of office bearers of first JDR Society has been indicated or arrayed as Shri Ashok B. Naik, Bhimanagouda Ramachandra Naik and S.M. Aralimatti, as President, Secretary and Principal of first JDR Society.
It is not in dispute that there is rivalry between two groups, each claiming to be in the Management of first JDR Society i.e., not an issue which requires to be gone into in this proceeding or in the execution proceeding as said matter would be purely civil in nature and involving disputed question of fact and as such, examination or scrutiny of such dispute would be alien to writ proceedings.
Be that as it may. The fact that 1st respondent herein who was appellant in before Educational Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 19/1991 has succeeded in the appeal. Hence, he has initiated execution proceedings. Since said order passed by Educational Appellate Tribunal which has ordered that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein namely JDR No. 1 and office bearers of JDR No. 1 would be required to comply with order passed by Tribunal. Since it was contended by learned counsel appearing for writ petitioners (in W.P. No. 109445/2014) that as per order passed by Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 19/1991 has been challenged by them, this Court in order to ascertain as to what is the factual matrix had directed this writ petition to be posted along with W.P. No. 85368/2013. At the cost of repetition, it requires to be noticed that pursuant to order passed by this Court in the present writ petition on 06.01.2015 W.P. No. 85368/2013 has also been listed. Perusal of order sheet would indicate that petitioners who have filed W.P. No. 85368/2013 have been arrayed as JDRs in Execution Petition No. 241/2014 namely JDRs 1 to 3. In fact, co-ordinate Bench of this Court which had the occasion to examine case papers relating to W.P. No. 85368/2013 had noticed that Secretary of 1st petitioner in W.P. No. 85368/2013, has signed the vakalathnama as Secretary of 1st petitioner Society by perusing said vakalathnama and this Court also noticed that said Secretary had been arrayed as 5th respondent in Appeal No. 19/1991 and he had signed the vakalathnama accordingly. After observing to said effect, this Court had observed that writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 85368/2013 would be liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs vide order dated 18.02.2014 and it reads as under:
"The respondent in his statement of objections has taken pain to produce the vakalath of the 1st petitioner society''s Secretary and he is the very same person who has signed the vakalath for the respondent No. 5 in the Appeal before the Tribunal.
If that is the case, then the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner seeks two days accommodation to instruct his client to see that the respondent Sri Vithal Patrappa Ramdurg is reinstated into service with 40% of back wages as ordered by the Tribunal, within a week''s time."
On account of learned counsel representing petitioner therein matter came to be adjourned by three days. Again when the matter came to be listed on 21.02.2014 learned counsel had made submission before this Court which is to the following effect:
"Today learned counsel for the petitioner Management submits, he has specifically instructed the management to pay 40% of the backwages as ordered by EAT and also take all the measures to settle the dispute of the respondent once for all. He also undertakes to keep the office bearers of the petitioner management present before the Court on 24.02.2014". 7. Coordinate Bench of this Court placing above said submission on record adjourned the matter to 24.02.2014. On said date, Management instead complying with undertaking given through learned advocate representing them took a detour and contended before this Court that 40% backwages ordered by the Educational Appellate Tribunal works out to Rs. 2,95,000/-, as against the claim of the workman teacher which was to the tune of Rs. 19,25,998/-. After considering rival contentions, this Court directed petitioner - Management therein to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 26.02.2014 and it was made clear that failure to deposit said amount, stay order would stand vacated.
Petitioner - Management therein instead of complying with the order passed by this Court, pleaded its inability to deposit said amount and also on the ground that there is rivalry between two groups of the Management and as such, it is unable to deposit the amount. Hence, this Court vacated the order of stay granted on 19.12.2013 and 28.02.2014. Respondent therein i.e., appellant in Appeal No. 19/1991 who is the decree holder in Execution No. 241/2013 was granted liberty to execute the order passed by the Tribunal. In this factual matrix when contentions raised in the present writ petition is examined, it would clearly indicate that respondent - Management has been avoiding, evading and dodging to comply with order passed by Education Appellate Tribunal and is attempting to take umbrage under the cover of infighting between two groups for control and management of the first JDR Society. In other words, to stave off its liability, first JDR is taking recourse to raising untenable grounds to suit its own stand and thereby attempting to scuttle the orders passed by Competent Court from being put into execution. The JDRs 1 to 3 in Execution No. 241/2014 who are writ petitioners in W.P. No. 85368/2013, through their advocate (who was then appearing) having undertaken to comply with order passed by Educational Appellate Tribunal have attempted to stave off their liability as already noticed herein above on the ground of fight between two groups. Undisputedly, claim of 1st respondent (decree holder) before the Educational Appellate Tribunal related to his unjustified and illegal dismissal from service which culminated in an order being passed by Educational Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 19/1991, whereunder JDR Society and its office bearers have been directed to reinstate the employee into service with 40% back wages which is now the subject matter of adjudication in W.P. No. 85368/2013. The correctness or otherwise of order passed by Appellate Tribunal will be examined by this Court in the said writ petition.
In that view of the matter, stalling of execution proceedings would not be justified when petitioners in W.P. No. 85368/2013 are contending and asserting themselves to be in management and control of first JDR Society they cannot be heard to contend that there was no order passed against them by the Education Appellate Tribunal, for being executed against them. First JDR is a legal entity or juristic person and it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Office bearers of said Society may change from time to time and as such, under the guise of either the order or decree being passed by a competent court was during the period when they were not office bearer or office bearers who have been subsequently elected and occupied the petitioners cannot stave off their liability. Hence, the contention raised in present writ petition requires to be rejected out right. That apart, 2nd writ petitioner who has been arrayed as 2nd JDR in Execution No. 241/2014 had also been arrayed as 5th respondent in Appeal No. 19/1991. Hence, he cannot heard to contend that execution proceedings initiated against him would not be maintainable.
For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- payable by petitioners to respondent No. 1 within four weeks from today. As otherwise respondent No. 1 would be at liberty to recover the same by executing this order, as if it were a decree.
Ordered accordingly.