Solan District Co-Operative (Marketing & Consumer) Federation Ltd vs Ram Lal

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

Caveat Petition No. 143 of 2020 in LPA No. 143 of 2020

Discharged. The petition stands disposed of.

LPAs No. 45 & 47 of 2020

Both these appeals involve common question of law and facts, hence they are taken up together for disposal.

These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31st July, 2020, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions, one filed by the Solan District Cooperative (Marketing and consumer) Federation Ltd.-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the Federation") in CWP No. 1107/2019 and another by Ram Lal-petitioner in CWP No. 2754/2019, came to be dismissed by a common judgment, for short ' the impugned judgment'.

The appellant-Federation, has questioned the impugned judgment, by the medium of these appeals, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

The facts of the case are that the respondent-employee was appointed as Helper in August, 1989 and was subsequently, promoted to the post of Salesman on 29. 11.1991 by the appellant-Federation. Thereafter, on 27. 01.2005, he was charge-sheeted on account of alleged misappropriation of funds. The respondent-employee filed reply to the charge-sheet denying all the charges, but on 31.03.2015, his services were terminated.

The respondent-employee challenged the aforesaid termination order passed by the respondent-Federation before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who vide order dated 3.5.2005, stayed the termination order. Thereafter, the respondent-employee submitted his joining report on 6.5.2005, but he was not allowed to join the duties. On 11.8.2005, order of termination dated 31.3.2005, passed by the appellant-Federation was quashed and set-aside by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and appellant-Federation was directed to reinstate the respondent-employee and to initiate fresh inquiry against him after affording an opportunity of being heard. But the appellant-Federation did not allow the respondent-employee to resume his services, rather preferred a Review/Revision under Section 94 of the HP State Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Eastern Division, Shimla. The Deputy Registrar vide order dated 30.11.2006, dismissed the Review/Revision filed by the appellant-Federation and ordered that the appellant-Federation shall act upon the order of Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies in its letter and spirit to facilitate the conducting of a proper Inquiry on each article of charge against the respondent-employee. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Registrar, appellant-Federation instead of initiating fresh enquiry issued Memorandum intimating the respondent-employee that Board of Directors have tentatively decided to impose the punishment of dismissal from service on him w.e.f. 31.3.2005. Along with the aforesaid Memorandum, appellant-Federation also supplied a copy of inquiry report dated 15.3.2005 submitted by the Inquiring Authority to the respondent-employee, calling upon him to file a representation, if any, against the proposed punishment. Vide Communication dated 21.4.2007 (Annexure P-6), the respondent-employee filed detailed reply specifically stating therein that since inquiry report dated 15.3.2005 has already been set-aside by the appellate Court, no punishment can be imposed upon him on the basis of such report, however, the appellant-Federation ignoring the aforesaid reply, passed order dated 16.5.2007 (Annexure P-7) dismissing the respondent-employee from service w.e.f. 16.5.2007.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed by the respondent-Federation, respondent-employee approached the Additional Registrar (Administration) Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, by way of petition under Section 72 of the HP Cooperative Societies Act, 1968. Learned counsel for the appellant-Federation raised question with regard to maintainability of the petition under Section 72 of the Act, accordingly, on 6.11.2007, learned counsel for the Federation prayed before the court below that petition having been filed by the respondent-employee under Section 72 of the Act may be treated as an appeal under Rule 23 of the Service Rules of Federation. However, vide order dated 2.1.2008, passed by the Additional Registrar (Administration) Cooperative Societies, the petition having been filed by the petitioner under Section 72 of the Act, which was sought to be treated as appeal under Rule 23 of Service Rules of Federation, was dismissed being not maintainable.

Being not satisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the appellant-Federation, respondent-employee filed Revision Petition under Section 94 of the Act, before the Joint Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, exercising power of State Government under HP Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.11.2008 with liberty to the respondent-employee to approach the appropriate Forum for appropriate remedy.

Thereafter, the respondent-employee approached the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide award dated 21.09.2011, decided the Reference in favour of the respondent-employee and held him entitled to reinstatement along with seniority and continuity in service.

The aforesaid award was challenged by the respondent-Federation by way of CWP No. 11482 of 2011, titled as The Solan District Co -operative (Marketing & Consumer) Federation Ltd versus Ram Lal and others. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 16.5.2012 by remanding the Reference back to the Tribunal with direction to implead the Solan District Co-operative (Marketing & Consumer) Federation Ltd. as party respondent and decide the matter afresh.

The appellant-Federation being aggrieved with the aforesaid award filed LPA No. 337 of 2012 before the Division Bench of this Court, but said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 7.8.2018. Thereafter, the Reference came to be adjudicated afresh by the Labour Court vide award dated 6.4.2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Tribunal though set-aside the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.5.2007 and directed the appellant-Federation to re-instate the respondent forthwith alongwith seniority and continuity in service, but held him not entitled to any back wages.

In the aforesaid background, both respondent-employee and appellant-Federation had approached this Court by way of two separate CWPs i.e. CWP No. 1107 of 2019, filed by the Federation and CWP No. 2754 of 2019, filed by the respondent-employee, laying therein challenge to aforesaid impugned award. Petitioner-employee was aggrieved on account of back wages, whereas respondent-Federation has approached this Court against reinstatement order passed by the Tribunal.

The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 31. 07.2020, passed in CWPs No. 1107 & 2754 of 2019, dismissed the petition filed by the Federation and allowed the petition filed by the respondent-employee and held him entitled to back wages from the date of his termination from service.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-Federation submits that despite the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies to facilitate the conducting of a proper Inquiry on each article of charge against the respondent-employee, no enquiry was initiated, rather Memorandum was issued to the respondent-employee to impose the punishment of dismissal from service on him w.e.f. 31.3.2005. He further submits that being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the appellant-Federation, petitioner-employee approached the Additional Registrar (Administration) Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, by way of petition under Section 72 of the HP Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, which was sought to be treated as an appeal under Rule 23 of Service Rules of Federation and was dismissed being not maintainable. This order has not been challenged, thus attained finality.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire file carefully.

From the perusal of the record, it is clear that vide the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had held the respondent- employee entitled to full back wages. He was reinstated, but was not paid the back wages from the date of his reinstatement. Thus, the employer-Federation has caused grave injustice to its employee.

Under these circumstance, we are of the considered view that the respondent-employee is entitled to back wages from the date of reinstatement. Accordingly, the employer-Federation is directed to pay the back wages to the respondent-employee from the date of his reinstatement till today, within a period of two weeks. Further, the employer- Federation is directed to comply with the judgment dated 31.07.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge, in letter and spirit, within a period of three months from today and release the salary within two weeks from today.

Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.