Sri M. Sadashivappa vs Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 1245 Kant

                             1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

       WRIT PETITION No.59800 OF 2014 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri. M. Sadashivappa,
S/o. Late Maribasavaiah,
Aged 75 years, (Senior Citizen),
R/at Anuvalu Village,
Hiremaralli Post,
Pandavapura Taluk - 571 435,
Mandya District.                               ... Petitioner

(By Sri. Naik V.S., Adv. (Physical Hearing))

AND:

1.     Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd.,
       Sunkathannur,
       Pandavapura Taluk - 571 435,
       Mandya District,
       By its Secretary

2.     The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,
       M.S. Building, Bengaluru - 560 001.
       Rep. by its Registrar.              ... Respondents

(Vide order dated 04.09.2018 notice held
 sufficient in respect of R1;
 By Smt. Sharadamba A.R., AGA for R2
 (Physical Hearing))
                              2




      This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 22.11.2014 passed by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.203/2012 (C.S.,) vide
Annexure - G and etc.,

      This Writ petition coming on for 'Orders' this day, the
Court made the following:

                         ORDER

Petitioner in this writ petition has called in

question the order dated 22.11.2014 of the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to

as the 'Tribunal', for short) whereby the Tribunal has

set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar of the

Co-operative Societies, Pandavapura Sub Division,

Pandavapura, who had held the dispute to be infavour

of the petitioner herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Naik V.S.,

appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA,

Smt. Sharadamba A.R., appearing for the 2nd

respondent. Service of notice to 1st respondent is held

sufficient.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the

present writ petition are that, petitioner was

appointed as the Secretary of the 1st respondent-

Society in the year 1968 and on 12.05.1983,

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the

petitioner for allegations of unauthorized absence,

which culminated in an order of terminating the

services of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.1983.

4. The petitioner had initiated conciliation

proceedings before the competent authority of the

appropriate government and upon failure of

conciliation proceedings, the appropriate government

referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Mysuru, for

industrial adjudication on 05.05.1995.

5. During the pendency of the dispute before

the Labour Court, the learned full Bench of this Court

held that for an employee of the Co-operative Society,

a dispute before the Labour Court would not be

maintainable and a dispute under Section 70 of the

Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Act', for short), alone, would be

maintainable. Noticing the judgment of the full Bench

of this Court, the Labour Court disposed of the dispute

on 22.06.2005. After which, the petitioner

approached the Assistant Registrar of the Co-

operative Societies by raising a dispute under Section

70 of the Act on 14.02.2008 explaining the delay of 2

years and 7 months in raising the dispute after the

judgment of the full bench of this Court.

6. The Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative

Societies accepting the cause shown, condoned the

delay and held the dispute in favour of the petitioner.

This order was challenged by the 1st respondent

before the Tribunal in Appeal No.203/2012(CS). The

Tribunal on miscalculation of the delay held that the

limitation to run from the date on which the dispute

was referred by the appropriate government i.e.,

22.06.2005. It is to be noticed that during pendency

of the dispute, the issue of the full bench came about

for which reason the dispute was held to be not

maintainable by the Labour Court. Therefore, the

limitation would not commence from the date on

which the dispute was referred but from the date on

which the dispute was closed before the Labour Court

holding it to be not maintainable. It would be 2 years

and 7 months from the date on which the petitioner

approached the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative

Societies under Section 70 of the Act and not 10 years

5 months as is calculated by the Tribunal. Therefore,

it is error apparent on the face of the record, in the

calculation made by the Tribunal, to set aside the

order passed by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-

operative Societies, which requires reconsideration at

the hands of the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons,

writ petition is allowed-in-part.

Order dated 22.11.2014 passed in Appeal

No.203/2012 (CS) by the Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal, Bengaluru, is quashed.

Matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for a

fresh consideration. Since the petitioner is now 80

years old and the order is of the year 2012, Tribunal

shall endeavour in disposing the proceedings within

six months from the date of receipt of copy of the

order.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SV