Himachal Pradesh High CourtFederation Ltd vs Ram Lal on 6 October, 2020Bench:L. Narayana Swamy,Anoop Chitkara1\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA\n\n                                   LPAs No. 45 & 47 of 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  .\n                                   Decided on : 06.10.2020\n\n\n\n\n\n     ________________________________________________________\n     LPA No. 45 of 2020.\n\n     The Solan District Co-operative (Marketing & Consumer)\n\n\n\n\n\n     Federation Ltd.\n\n                                                             ......Appellant\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             Versus\n\n     Ram Lal                                                   ....Respondent\n\n     LPA No. 47 of 2020.\n\n     The Solan District Co-operative (Marketing & Consumer)\n     Federation Ltd.\n                                                ......Appellant\n\n\n\n                 Versus\n     Ram Lal                                                   ....Respondent\n\n\n\n\n    _____________________________________________________\n    Coram:\n\n\n\n\n\n     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice\n     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.\n     Whether approved for reporting?\n\n\n\n\n\n     For the Appellant(s) :                  Mr. Sameer Thakur, Advocate.\n\n     For the Respondent(s):                  Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate.\n     _________________________________________________________\n\n     L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice          (Oral)Caveat Petition No. 143 of 2020 in LPA No. 143 of 2020\n\n                      Discharged. The petition stands disposed of.::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 20:18:12 :::HCHP2LPAs No. 45 & 47 of 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                           .2.          Both these appeals involve common question\n\n\n\n\n\n     of law and facts, hence they are taken up together for\n\n\n\n\n\n     disposal.3.          These Letters Patent Appeals are directed\n\n\n\n\n\n     against the judgment dated 31st July, 2020, passed by the\n\n     learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions, one filed by\n\n     the Solan District Cooperative (Marketing and consumer)\n\n\n     Federation Ltd.-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the\n\n     Federation") in CWP No. 1107/2019 and another by Ram Lal-\n\n     petitioner in CWP No. 2754/2019, came to be dismissed by a\n\n\n\n     common judgment, for short ' the impugned judgment'.4.          The appellant-Federation, has questioned the\n\n\n\n\n\n     impugned judgment, by the medium of these appeals, on the\n\n     grounds taken in the memo of appeal.5.          The facts of the case are that the respondent-\n\n     employee was appointed as Helper in August, 1989 and was\n\n     subsequently, promoted to the post of Salesman on\n\n     29.11.1991 by the appellant-Federation.           Thereafter, on\n\n     27.01.2005, he was charge-sheeted on account of alleged\n\n     misappropriation of funds.    The respondent-employee filed::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 20:18:12 :::HCHP3reply to the charge-sheet denying all the charges, but on\n\n     31.03.2015, his services were terminated..6.           The      respondent-employee        challenged        the\n\n     aforesaid termination order passed by the respondent-\n\n\n\n\n\n     Federation   before    the   Deputy    Registrar,       Cooperative\n\n     Societies, who vide order dated 3.5.2005, stayed the\n\n\n\n\n\n     termination order.      Thereafter, the respondent-employee\n\n     submitted his joining report on 6.5.2005, but he was not\n\n     allowed to join the duties. On 11.8.2005, order of termination\n\n     dated 31.3.2005, passed by the appellant-Federation was\n\n     quashed and set-aside by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative\n\n\n     Societies and appellant-Federation was directed to reinstate\n\n     the respondent-employee and to initiate fresh inquiry against\n\n\n\n\n     him after affording an opportunity of being heard. But the\n\n\n\n\n\n     appellant-Federation did not allow the respondent-employee\n\n     to resume his services, rather preferred a Review/Revision\n\n\n\n\n\n     under Section 94 of the HP State Cooperative Societies Act,\n\n     1968 before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,\n\n     Eastern Division, Shimla. The Deputy Registrar vide order\n\n     dated 30.11.2006, dismissed the Review/Revision filed by\n\n     the appellant-Federation and ordered that the appellant-\n\n     Federation shall act upon the order of Deputy Registrar\n\n     Cooperative Societies in its letter and spirit to facilitate the::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 20:18:12 :::HCHP4conducting    of a proper Inquiry on each article of charge\n\n     against the respondent-employee. Pursuant to the aforesaid\n\n\n\n\n                                                           .order passed by the Deputy Registrar, appellant-Federation\n\n     instead of initiating fresh enquiry issued Memorandum\n\n\n\n\n\n     intimating the respondent-employee that Board of Directors\n\n     have tentatively decided to impose the punishment of\n\n\n\n\n\n     dismissal from service on him w.e.f. 31.3.2005. Along with\n\n     the   aforesaid\n                r      Memorandum,      appellant-Federation          also\n\n     supplied a copy of inquiry report dated 15.3.2005 submitted\n\n     by the Inquiring Authority to the respondent-employee, calling\n\n     upon him to file a representation, if any, against the proposed\n\n\n     punishment.       Vide   Communication        dated     21.4.2007\n\n     (Annexure P-6), the respondent-employee filed detailed reply\n\n\n\n\n     specifically stating therein that since inquiry report dated\n\n\n\n\n\n     15.3.2005 has already been set-aside by the appellate Court,\n\n     no punishment can be imposed upon him on the basis of such\n\n\n\n\n\n     report, however, the appellant-Federation ignoring the\n\n     aforesaid reply, passed order dated 16.5.2007 (Annexure P-7)\n\n     dismissing the respondent-employee from service w.e.f.\n\n     16.5.2007.7.            Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed\n\n     by    the     respondent-Federation,      respondent-employee\n\n     approached     the   Additional   Registrar      (Administration)::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 20:18:12 :::HCHP5Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, by way of petition\n\n     under Section 72 of the HP Cooperative Societies Act, 1968..Learned counsel for the appellant-Federation raised question\n\n     with regard to maintainability of the petition under Section 72\n\n\n\n\n\n     of the Act, accordingly, on 6.11.2007, learned counsel for the\n\n     Federation prayed before the court below that petition having\n\n\n\n\n\n     been filed by the respondent-employee under Section 72 of\n\n     the Act may be treated as an appeal under Rule 23 of the\n\n     Service Rules of Federation. However, vide order dated\n\n     2.1.2008, passed by the Additional Registrar (Administration)\n\n     Cooperative Societies, the petition having been filed by the\n\n\n     petitioner under Section 72 of the Act, which was sought to be\n\n     treated as appeal under Rule 23 of Service Rules of\n\n\n\n\n     Federation, was dismissed being not maintainable.8.           Being not satisfied with the aforesaid order\n\n     passed by the appellant-Federation, respondent-employee\n\n\n\n\n\n     filed Revision Petition under Section 94 of the Act, before the\n\n     Joint Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal\n\n     Pradesh, exercising power of State Government under HP\n\n     Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, which was dismissed as\n\n     withdrawn on 6.11.2008 with liberty to the respondent-\n\n     employee to approach the appropriate Forum for appropriate\n\n     remedy.::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 20:18:12 :::HCHP69.           Thereafter,       the          respondent-employee\n\n     approached the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide\n\n\n\n\n                                                             .award dated 21.09.2011, decided the Reference in favour of\n\n     the   respondent-employee      and    held      him     entitled      to\n\n\n\n\n\n     reinstatement along with seniority and continuity in service.10.          The aforesaid award was challenged by the\n\n\n\n\n\n     respondent-Federation by way of CWP No. 11482 of 2011,\n\n     titled asThe Solan District Co-operative (Marketing &\n\n     Consumer) Federation Ltd versus Ram Lal and others. The\n\n     aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court vide\n\n     judgment dated 16.5.2012 by remanding the Reference back\n\n\n     to the Tribunal with direction to implead the Solan District Co-\n\n     operative (Marketing & Consumer) Federation Ltd. as party\n\n\n\n\n     respondent and decide the matter afresh.11.          The appellant-Federation being aggrieved with\n\n     the aforesaid award filed LPA No. 337 of 2012 before the\n\n\n\n\n\n     Division Bench of this Court, but said appeal was dismissed\n\n     vide judgment dated 7.8.2018. Thereafter, the Reference\n\n     came to be adjudicated afresh by the Labour Court vide award\n\n     dated 6.4.2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Tribunal though\n\n     set-aside the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.5.2007\n\n     and directed the appellant-Federation to re-instate the::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 20:18:12 :::HCHP7respondent forthwith alongwith seniority and continuity in\n\n     service, but held him not entitled to any back wages..12.          In the aforesaid background, both respondent-\n\n     employee and appellant-Federation had approached this\n\n\n\n\n\n     Court by way of two separate CWPs i.e. CWP No. 1107 of\n\n     2019, filed by the Federation and CWP No. 2754 of 2019,\n\n\n\n\n\n     filed by the respondent-employee, laying therein challenge to\n\n     aforesaid   impugned\n                   r          award.     Petitioner-employee           was\n\n     aggrieved on account of back wages, whereas respondent-\n\n     Federation has approached this Court against reinstatement\n\n     order passed by the Tribunal.13.          The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated\n\n     31.07.2020, passed in CWPs No. 1107 & 2754 of 2019,\n\n\n\n\n     dismissed the petition filed by the Federation and allowed the\n\n\n\n\n\n     petition filed by the respondent-employee and held him\n\n     entitled to back wages from the date of his termination from\n\n\n\n\n\n     service.14.          Learned Counsel for the appellant-Federation\n\n     submits that despite the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-\n\n     operative Societies to facilitate the conducting of a proper\n\n     Inquiry on each article of charge against the respondent-\n\n     employee, no enquiry was initiated, rather Memorandum was\n\n     issued to the respondent-employee to impose the punishment::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 20:18:12 :::HCHP8of dismissal from service on him w.e.f. 31.3.2005. He further\n\n     submits that being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by\n\n\n\n\n                                                            .the appellant-Federation, petitioner-employee approached the\n\n     Additional Registrar (Administration) Cooperative Societies,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Himachal Pradesh, by way of petition under Section 72 of the\n\n     HP Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, which was sought to be\n\n\n\n\n\n     treated as an appeal under Rule 23 of Service Rules of\n\n     Federation and was dismissed being not maintainable. This\n\n     order has not been challenged, thus attained finality.15.          We have heard learned Counsel for the parties\n\n     and have perused the entire file carefully.16.          From the perusal of the record, it is clear that\n\n     vide the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had\n\n\n\n\n     held the respondent- employee entitled to full back wages.\n\n\n\n\n\n     He was reinstated, but was not paid the back wages from the\n\n     date of his reinstatement. Thus, the employer-Federation has\n\n\n\n\n\n     caused grave injustice to its employee.17.          Under these circumstance, we are of the\n\n     considered view that the respondent-employee is entitled to\n\n     back wages from the date of reinstatement. Accordingly, the\n\n     employer-Federation is directed to pay the back wages to the\n\n     respondent-employee from the date of his reinstatement till\n\n     today, within a period of two weeks. Further, the employer-::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 20:18:12 :::HCHP9Federation is directed to comply with the judgment dated\n\n     31.07.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge, in letter and\n\n\n\n\n                                                            .spirit, within a period of three months from today and release\n\n     the salary within two weeks from today.18.          Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed\n\n     alongwith pending application(s), if any.r       to                   (L. Narayana Swamy)\n                                                   Chief Justice.\n\n     October 6, 2020                             (Anoop Chitkara)\n      (hemlata)                                       Judge.::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 20:18:12 :::HCHP