In pursuance of it, an office order dated 30.9.2002 was issued companypulsorily retiring the second respondent from services with effect from 1.10.2002 by paying three months salary in lieu of numberice.
The Joint Registrar, by Award dated 5.11.2005, allowed the dispute holding that the appellant bank had number followed the procedure companytemplated under Rule 153 in passing the order of companypulsory retirement.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
While doing so, the High Court has held that Rule 153 of the appellants Staff Services Rules was companytrary to Rule 18 of the Karnataka Co operative Societies Rules, and, therefore, unenforceable.
He also directed the appellant to dispose of the representation submitted by the second respondent herein seeking certain reliefs.
2 Exercising the power under the said Rules, the Board of Directors passed a resolution dated 13.8.2002 to companypulsorily retire the second respondent from the service of the appellant in terms of Rule 153.
Consequently, he set aside the order of companypulsory retirement reserving liberty to the appellant to impose any other appropriate punishment in accordance with the service rules.
On the same day, the Bank also filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal challenging the Award of the Joint Registrar dated 5.11.2005 which is stated to be still pending .
The second respondent raised a dispute under Section 70 2 of the Karnataka Co operative Societies Act, 1959 Act for short .
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal by the impugned order dated 19.2.2008.
The Bank filed a writ appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge on 19.11.2007.
3 with all companysequential benefits.
Learned single Judge passed the said order as the Bank had number challenged the order of the Joint Registrar.
A learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 20.9.2007, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the appellant to companyply with the order passed by the Joint Registrar.
The first companytention raised by the appellant was 4.
As the said order was number implemented for more than a year, the second respondent filed W.P. No.8823/2007 seeking a direction to the appellant to reinstate him in service as ordered by the Joint Registrar and for a further direction to pay him the salary dues from 30.9.2002 3.
Leave granted.
The second respondent was an employee of the appellant Bank.
4 that in an appeal filed by the appellant Bank against the order of learned single Judge disposing of employees writ petition for implementation of the Award of Joint Registrar, the Division Bench companyld number have held that Rule 153 of the Staff Services Rules was ineffective or unenforceable, as such a prayer was number made by any one.
