Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nana Chudhaman Bhamkar vs Betul Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit on 21 July, 2014
Author: Alok Verma
Bench: Alok Verma
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No : 10279 of 2006(S)
Nana Chudhaman Bhamkar
- V/s -
Betul Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Verma.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajnish Pandey, counsel for the respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.
ORDER
23/07/2014 This is a petition filed by the petitioner calling in question tenability of an order-dated 3.6.2006, passed by the MP State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal in First Appeal No.92/2006, whereby even though an order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies Bhopal in a proceeding held under section 55(2) of the MP Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is upheld and the action taken against the petitioner is quashed, but while granting the consequential benefits of back wages awarded by the Joint Registrar has been converted to be treated on the principle of 'no work no wage'. Challenging the order of the Tribunal to that extent, this petition is filed by the petitioner employee.
2- Facts in brief go to show that petitioner was initially appointed as a LDC with the respondent bank on 16.6.1976. He was promoted from time to time and ultimately was working as a Manager, 2 Writ Petition No :: 10279 / 2006 Nana Chudhaman Bhamkar Vs. Betul Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit.
in the year 2001, when he compulsorily retired by the Bank vide order- dated 12.9.2001. Challenging this compulsory retirement on the ground that it is a punishment for misconduct committed and the order has been passed without following the mandate of the statutory rules or the principles of natural justice, challenge was made to this order before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal in a dispute raised by the petitioner under section 55(2) of the Act. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, vide order-dated 11.4.2005 found that the compulsory retirement imposed is illegal, it has been done in total violation of the Rules and law and, therefore, set aside the termination dated 12.9.2001. Challenging this order dated 11.4.2005 passed by the Joint Registrar, an appeal under section 78 of the Act, was filed before the MP State Cooperative Tribunal. The Cooperative Tribunal went into the details of the matter and found that the petitioner was compulsorily retired under the provisions of Rule 68, of the Nagrik Sahkari Bank Karamchari Sewa (Niyojan, Nibhandhan Tatha Karyasthiti) Niyam, 1993. The Tribunal found that under Rule 68, an employee can be compulsorily retired after he has attained the age of 58 years or 25 years of service, if he is found to be a dead wood. The Cooperative Tribunal went through the original records and found that in the case of the present petitioner, he was not removed from service finding him to be 'dead wood' after scrutiny of his service record, on the contrary on the allegations of misconduct said to have been committed by him at one instance, he has been compulsorily retired treating him to be 'dead wood'. According to the Tribunal, this was not permissible, as the employee was terminated for misconduct, for which no inquiry was held, principles of natural justice have been violated and, therefore, the Tribunal found that no case for interference with the reasonable order passed by the Joint Registrar is made out. However, while dismissing the appeal on such consideration, in the final directions issued, the MP State Cooperative Tribunal has only held that the period from 12.9.2001 i.e... the date on which the impugned action was taken, till the actual date of 3 Writ Petition No :: 10279 / 2006 Nana Chudhaman Bhamkar Vs. Betul Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit.
retirement of the petitioner, the period shall be treated on the principle of 'no work no wage'.
3- Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, took us through the findings recorded by the Tribunal and argued that the Tribunal in a very casual manner without any reason or justification has directed for treating the period on the principle of 'no work no wage'. Learned counsel submits that once the impugned order of termination is found to be illegal and is quashed, the consequential benefit of reinstatement, will all ancillary benefit, is liable to be passed and if for any reason the Tribunal found that the consequential benefit of backwages cannot be granted, substantial justification and reasons for the same should be available. It is stated that once the Joint Registrar had directed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits, the Tribunal could not interfere with this order without there being any justifiable reasons for doing so.
4- In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the following cases: Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyala (D.Ed) and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324; and, Shiv Nandan Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2013) 11 SCC 626, to canvass a contention that ordinarily when the impugned action is set aside and the employee is prevented from working because of the impugned order, he is entitled for the consequential benefits of backwages and the same cannot be denied until and unless cogent and justifiable reasons are available.
5- Having considered the contention advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we find that the benefit of backwages has been denied to the petitioner without indicating any reason; and, if the principle laid down in the cases Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) and Shiv Nandan Mahto (supra) are applied, in the absence of there being any reasonable justification for denying backwages, the Tribunal has committed an error in modifying the order of Joint Registrar to the extent as challenged by the petitioner.
4Writ Petition No :: 10279 / 2006 Nana Chudhaman Bhamkar Vs. Betul Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit.
6- Once the order of termination/compulsory retirement is found to be illegal and is quashed, normally reinstatement with all consequential benefit of backwages should have been granted and this having been denied without any just cause or reason and without giving any justification for the same, we are inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner and allow this petition.
7- Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 3.6.2006, passed by the learned MP State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal in F.A. No. 92/2006, so far as it directs for treating the period from 12.9.2001 till the age of superannuation of the petitioner on the principle of 'no work no wage' is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner be granted the entire backwages for the period in question, after deducting the pension, if any, already granted to him by virtue of the order of compulsory retirement. Necessary compliance be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8- Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
( RAJENDRA MENON ) ( ALOK VERMA )
JUDGE JUDGE
Aks/-