Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhmi Chand S/O Sh.Roshan Lal vs Financial Commissioner And Principal ... on 29 May, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No. 10560 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 10560 of 2012
Date of decision May 29 , 2012
Lakhmi Chand s/o Sh.Roshan Lal, Salesman, Chandhut
Cooperative Credit & Service Socieity Ltd. Chandut
....... Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. of
Haryana, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Surinder Singh Dalal , Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The petitioner's grievance is that the condition precedent for reference to arbitration namely a reference of dispute as contemplated under Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act does not exist. The petitioner's contention is that the resolution of the Board merely referred to a liability of Satbir Singh ex-Secretary who had embezzled the amount, and at no point of time there was any dispute implicating the petitioner's liability. I would find the argument to be wholly untenable for the manner of reference to dispute for a statutory arbitration is in the nature of the presentation of a memorial and the proceedings could be at all time initiated in the CWP No. 10560 of 2012 2 manner contemplated by law. All that is necessary is that in a claim statement before the Registrar who acts as an Arbitrator, there shall be a proper statement of facts making it evident for a party to contest the claim. The present petitioner has been arrayed as second respondent and Smt. Prem Wati wife of late Satbir Singh ex- Secretary has been arrayed as the first respondent. The present petitioner himself had been shown as a ex-salesman during that relevant period. The order has come to be passed by the authority after due notice and before this Court the petitioner makes no attempt to deny on the merits of the claims that have been adverted to in the order but stays restricted to only the point of law and would not argue on the merits of the contention. Counsel for the petitioner refers me to the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Brij Kishore Arora Vs. Administrator, U.T.Chandigarh 1994 PLJ 68. The case has been rendered with reference to the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act where the Bench has held that while referring a dispute there ought to be a valid resolution and passing of the resolution itself is not an empty formality. This was in the context of an objection raised during the proceedings that there had been no dispute raised against him and that the provisions relating to reference of a dispute to arbitration had not been complied with.
2. In this case, I have gone through the order and I find that no reference anywhere of any objection that there existed no dispute or that the presentation of petition by the Society before the Arbitrator against him was in any way technically flawed for want of resolution. This assumes a significance because in terms CWP No. 10560 of 2012 3 of Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act all that is necessary is that a dispute shall be referred to the arbitrator and that would include a dispute brought at the instance of the Society against a member or past member, as per Section 102 (1)(c) of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act. Section 102 (2) (a) includes within the category of a claim by the Society for any debt or demand from the member. The case by the Society against the petitioner and the widow of Satbir Singh was that certain amounts which had been collected by the petitioner and the husband of Prem Wati but were not duly accounted and during the office as a salesman and Secretary respectively and an amount of `1,50,610/- that included the interest for the particular claim of `94883/- with interest was liable to be recovered. There cannot be, therefore, a doubt that the amount which was sought to be recovered through arbitral process fell within the definition of dispute and the arbitration was between the Society and an employee. Whether there existed a resolution for taking action against the petitioner or not ought to have been a matter that was itself a point of dispute. If the petitioner had not contended at any time that the Society had not passed a resolution for referring the dispute and that the action by the Society was without authority, it should have been possible for the Registrar to enter upon such an adjudication. The point urged before this Court was not a point at any time urged before the authority and it shall be impermissible for the petitioner to raise such question in the writ jurisdiction for the first time. The contention raised by the petitioner ought to therefore fail. The orders passed cannot be assailed on the CWP No. 10560 of 2012 4 ground urged before this Court.
3. The writ petition is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 29 , 2012 archana