Pritam Dass vs Additional Secretary Cooperation and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—On 1.8.1982, the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the Lopoke Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Lopoke. He held this post till November 1983. Since no salary was paid to him from the date of his joining, he left the job on 24.11.1983. Almost a decade later, the Society raised a dispute for recovery of an amount of Rs. 12,872.27 alongwith interest and costs against the petitioner. The matter was referred by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to the Arbitrator. The petitioner appeared and pointed out that he had not been paid any salary for the period from 1.8.72 to 24.11.1983. He further pointed out that he had spent an amount of Rs. 3,737/- for transportation of fertilizer and the rent for the go-down. The petitioner claimed a set-off. Mr. Jagjit Singh, the Secretary of the Society admitted the claim of the petitioner. He stated that "the Society is ready to deduct the salary of Shri Pritam Dass and expenses incurred on the fertilizer etc. but Shri Pritam Dass should also deposit the outstanding amount towards him".

The matter was considered by the Arbitrator. After adjustment of the amount, he found that an amount of Rs. 2,914.27 only was due to the Society on account of principal. He further held that the Society was entitled to an amount of Rs. 5,925.73 on account of interest. Thus, he gave an award for a total sum of Rs. 8,840/- against the petitioner. This was to be paid by him in three instalments.

In pursuance of the award, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 7,900/- in the Saving Bank account of the Society. However, the Society filed an appeal. The Assistant Registrar vide his order dated 15,12.1997 accepted the appeal and held that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 35,982/-. While passing this order, even the amount of Rs. 7,900/-, which had been deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the award was not credited to his account. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the State Government. This petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.4.2000. Copies of the orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have been produced as Annexures P. 3 and P. 4 respectively.

The petitioner alleges that the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Thus, he prays that these orders be quashed.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Society only. The other respondents have not filed any reply. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner had never raised any arbitration dispute for the payment of salary and expenses incurred by him from his own pocket. There is no time limit within which a dispute has to be raised. Thus, without a counter-claim having been referred to an Arbitrator, the claim for set off could not have been allowed. Since the award as given by the Arbitrator was wrong, it was rightly set aside by the Appellate Authority and the order was confirmed in revision. On these premises, the respondent prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Admittedly, the petitioner had joined service of the respondent-Society on 1.8.1982. He was not paid a penny till 24.11.1983. Thus, he had left the service. Still further, it is not disputed that no claim was raised by the respondent-Society till the year 1993. After a lapse of almost 10 years, the Society had raised the dispute for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 12,877.27 on account of principal. It had also claimed an amount of Rs. 21,962.73 by way of interest. In addition, costs of Rs. 250/- were also demanded. Despite delay, the claim was entertained by the Assistant Registrar. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The petitioner had candidly admitted his liability to pay. Simultaneously, he had made his own claim for the arrears of salary. He had also claimed Rs. 3,737/- on account of the expenses which had been actually incurred by him. The petitioner''s claim was duly accepted by Mr. Jagjit Singh the Secretary of the Society, who was appearing on its behalf before the Arbitrator. On the acceptance of the petitioner''s claim by the Secretary, the mater was considered by the Arbitrator. The claim for set-off was allowed and an award for an amount of Rs. 8,840/- was passed. Out of this amount, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 7,900/-. Having accepted the amount, the Society had also chosen to file the appeal. It claimed the full amount of Rs. 35,982/-. The Assistant Registrar did not even give credit for the amount of Rs. 7,900/- deposited by the petitioner. He also did not bother about the amount which was due to the petitioner on account of the arrears of salary. He held the Society entitled to the payment of the full amount as claimed by it. The petitioner filed a revision petition. After noticing the facts, the Revisional Authority disposed of the matter with the following observations:

"1 have heard Shri l.S. Saggu, Id. counsel for the Society respondent no. 1 and have carefully considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the petitioner.l am of the view that award has been rightly set aside and the appellate order has been passed by ARCS, Nawanshahar after thoroughly scrutinising the Society''s record. Hence, I do not find any legal infirmity, in the impugned order,so the revision petition is dismissed."

The action of the respondent-Authorities is apparently arbitrary. The Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority have upheld the claim of the Society without caring for the claim of the petitioner. Still further, even the amount which had been actually deposited by the petitioner after the award was not taken into account. Both the orders suffer from a total lack of application of mind. These are wholly arbitrary and cannot be sustained.

Mr. Amar Singh, counsel for the Society contends that the petitioner had not sought a reference. It may be so. However, on receipt of the notice, the petitioner had made a claim before the Arbitrator. His claim was duly admitted by the Secretary of the Society. The amount had been due to the petitioner since August, 1982 when he had joined the service. If the Society was entitled to recover its dues, even the petitioner had an equal right. The Arbitrator had rightly recognised the facts and passed the order. While passing the impugred orders, the respondent-Authorities have totally ignored all considerations of equity.

Mr. Amar Singh, learned counsel contends that the Society takes loan from the Cooperative Bank. It pays interest. Thus, it was entitled to recover the money from the petitioner alongwith interest.

The counsel is right. However, what he is very conveniently forgetting is that even the petitioner was entitled to his wages. On non-payment of wages, he was entitled to the interest in the same manner in which the Society was claiming. If that interest had been awarded to him, the petitioner would have been entitled to a higher amount than what was actually awarded by the Arbitrator.

Mr. Amar Singh contends that the Society has suffered a substantial loss, and, thus, the petitioner should be called upon to pay. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel states that the petitioner is 86 years old. He has no source of income. A wholly unwarranted burden was placed on him. The impugned orders should be quashed.

Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it is clear that the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities had erred in exercise of their jurisdiction. They had failed to take into consideration material and relevant facts. The orders passed by the Authorities cannot be sustained.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexure P. 3 and P.4 are set aside. The petitioner shall also be entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.