CWP No.3355 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3355 of 2014 Date of decision:- 04.07.2014.
Balbir Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Registrar Coop.
Societies, Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.S.Kang, Advocate for the petitioneRs.**** SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 14.08.2013 (Annexure P-5).Case of the petitioneRs.in brief, is that they were working as Secretaries/Sewadars in various primary House Building Cooperative Societies (hereinafter called Societies).The said Societies were members of Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Housing Building Societies LTD.(hereinafter called the Federation/Housefed).The petitioners were working under the control and directions issued by the Managing Director, Housefed through its District ManageRs.Therefore, petitioners were entitled to be paid salary as per the rules framed by the Housefed.
Petitioners had submitted representation (Annexure P-4) for redressal of their Sandeep Sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.3355 of 2014 -2- grievance to respondent No.1-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab.
The said representation was dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.08.2013 (Annexure P-5).Hence, the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioners for grant of pay as allowed to the employees of Housefed had been erroneously rejected by respondent No.1.
In fact, petitioners were liable to be treated as employees of Housefed and were liable to be paid the same salaries as were being disbursed to the employees of the Housefed.
The relevant portion of the impugned order (Annexure P-5) reads as under:- “I have considered the points raised by the petitioners as well as by the Md.Housefed.
The facts to the case are that most of the petitioners were initially engaged by the society on temporary basis without following any transparent procedure.
Later on, some of the societies raised their salaries without considering whether they could bear the cost of increased salaries, despite meager income.
It is clear that the petitioners were engaged as peons even when there was no justification for the societies for employing the petitioneRs.especially when disbursal and recovery of loans was to be done by the Sandeep Sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.3355 of 2014 -3- Secretary posted in these societies by Housefed.
Furthermore, the business of these societies is very small and there was no justification for committees to raise their salaries, especially when there were no funds with the societies to meet these enhanced expenses.
In view of these circumstances, it would not be fair or prudent to compel the society to give pay to the petitioners for the period, during which they have served the society at rates in excess of the wages fixed by the District Collector for employees of their category.
In fact, keeping in view the meager quantum of business of these housing societies and the fact that the real work of advancement and recovery of loan is to be done by the Secretaries posted and paid for by Housefed, these societies do not appear to require full time peons.
At the most, some of them can have part time peons and that too if they have sufficient funds for paying them.
The contention that the pay of the petitioners should be Housefed or Government cannot be accepted because they are not employees of Housefed or Government but of different societies, which are autonomous, independent and separate body corporate as per section 30 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
The mere fact that the societies are members Sandeep Sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.3355 of 2014 -4- of Housefed does not cast any obligation on Housefed to pay for the salaries of the Staff of these societies.
The Punjab State Cooperative Federation Service Rules, 2001 do not apply to the employees of the Cooperative house building Societies which are independent bodies.
Even otherwise, the societies are not in a position to give them higher salaries which are being claimed because it is beyond their means.
Although the Registrar has the power to issue directions under Rule 45 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies, Rules 1963, such directions have to be issued for the benefit and the efficient functioning of the society after taking into consideration all the circumstances.
In view of the above circumstances, it would not be prudent to issue directions to these housing societies to pay salaries to these persons as is being claimed by them.
However, these societies are directed to ensure that the employees should not be paid less than the minimum wages as determined by the District Collector.
They are also directed to make serious efforts to substantially improve the recovery of loan so that they can meet their genuine expenditure and pay salaries to their staff.
However, if the societies are unable to do so, they should consider retrenchment/removal of the employees in Sandeep Sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.3355 of 2014 -5- accordance with the law.”
.
The reasons given by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab while rejecting the representation moved by the petitioner are sound reasons.
Petitioners had been engaged by the Societies without any justification at their own level and, therefore, could not be treated as employees of the Housefed.
Further the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab has already issued direction vide the impugned order (Annexure P-5) that the Societies should ensure that the employees are not paid less than the minimum wages determined by the District Collector.
Hence, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 04, 2014.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document