LexTHE SHAHABAD COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF HARYANA CORPN. AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE SHAHABAD COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF HARYANA CORPN. AND ORS NOVEMBER 10,2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984-Sections 114 and 115- Employee of mill registered as cooperative society-Dismissal after enquiry- A B His appeal to Registrar, Cooperative Societies under section 114 of Punjab C Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 dismissed-However, his revision against that before State Government under Section 115 of Act of 1984 was allowed- High Court holding that State Government had revisional jurisdiction- Correctness of-Held-Under Act of 1984, only State Government was entitled to hear appeal against order of Registrar, and also had revisional power, it could not exercise the latter if an appeal lay before it-Employee having D preferred appeal before Registrar and not invoke arbitration under Section 102 of Act of 1984 against award wherefrom appeal lay before State, revision was not maintainable-A fortiori, that power could not be said to be exercised by State suo motu, more so where power is exercised suo motu, it has to be stated so -Employee himself having taken recourse to appeal E before Registrar, he could not latter say it was not maintainable. Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984-Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961-Held-These two acts are not in pari material-They contain different provisions-Purport and object of revisional jurisdiction of State Government under the Haryana Act is in effect and substance different F from those of Punjab Act. Doctrine-Stare decisis-App/icability Oj ·-Held-It does not contain an inflexible rule-It is not applicable where two statutes are not in pari materia Maxims-Coram non judice-Order passed without jurisdiction. Respondent no.3 was appointed as Chief Accounts officer with appellant, a mill registered as cooperative society. Charge"'.sheet was issued to him on the ground that he had committed misconduct. Based on report of Enquiry 979 G H 980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A Officer who ;looked into the correctness of the said charges, he was dismissed from service by order Qf Board of Directors of appellant. His appeal therefrom to Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 114 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, was dismissed. However, his revision petition against that before the State Government in terms of Section 115 of the Haryana Co- operative Societies Act, 1984, which had Some into existence subsequently, B was allowed. Writ petition of appellant was disriiissed by High Court holding that the State Government was entitled to exercise its revisional jurisdiction and the enquiry was not properly conducted. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that State Government could not exercise its C revisional jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case. Respondent no 3 contended that (i) the State Government had l'ev.isional power which it could exercise suo motu or on application ·Ofa party (ii) in the alternative, if it is held that his revision petition was not maintainable, his appeal before Registrar was not maintainable (iii) as the High Court itself D had earlier quashed the First Information Report lodged against him, the present appeal under dis..:retionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1952 should 1not be entertained. Allowing .the appeal, the Court E HELD 1.1. Under the Haryana Act, an appeal and revision is maintainable from an Award made by an Arbitrator appointed in terms of Section 102 of the Act. The party to a reference under Section 102 would mean a party to arbitration for reference~ Section 114 provides for a appeal from an award which may be.passed by the Arbitrator appointed in terms of Section 103 of F the Act. [991-B, CJ 1.2. Wherea~ an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Registrar unaer the Punjab Act is maintainable before the Registrar, under the Haryana Act it would be maintainable only before the State Government. Revisional power under the Punjab Act is vested both in the Registrar as also G the State Government,_ whereas under the Haryana Act the revisional power is vested only in the State Government. !991-D, E) t.3. The State cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction if an appeal Ues before it. Ifan appeal lies, a revision would not lie. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent preferred an app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.