# Committee of Management Urban CoOperative Bank Ltd. Basti & Anr v. Debt Recovery Tribunal Allahabad & Ors - **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 1292 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2017-11-22 - **Case number:** Writ-C No. 65580 of 2015 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Ajit Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-urban-cooperative-bank-ltd-basti-anr-v-debt-recovery-44305 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote C.S.C. A. Deciding question of maintainability by Registrar of Tribunal - an issue which can be decided only by appropriate forum and not by ministerial staff, more so when no such provision is existing in statute empowering Registrar to take a decision on the question of maintainability. (Para 4) Petition filed by petitioners before Debts Recovery Tribunal - returned by Registrar - on the ground of maintainability - Registrar has gone to the extent of disregarding the judgements , Narendra Kanti Lal Shah Vs. Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies & M. Babu Rao and others Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others , observing that judicial explanation does not become binding unless rules are subsequently modified to accommodate need for change - This approach and understanding on the part of Registrar speaks about not only impertinence but lack of judicial knowledge wherein it can ignore verdict of two High Courts on the ground that judgment itself is not binding unless rules are modified. (Para 3 & 5) Held:- Order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal set aside - Registrar of Debts Recovery Tribunal directed to register the original application filed by petitioners - it will be open to Tribunal to record deficiencies/ objections whatever it finds, where after final decision on correctness of those deficiencies/ objections will be taken by Tribunal. (Para 6) Writ Petition allowed. (E-7) List of cases cited: - 1.Narendra Kanti Lal Shah Vs. Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bombay High Court, 2.M. Babu Rao and others Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others. ## Text 1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES has to demonstrate that even if considerable period has lapsed and there are laches and delays, such delay has not resulted into making the industrial dispute cease to exist. Therefore, if the workman is able to give satisfactory explanation for these laches and delays and demonstrate that the circumstances disclose that issue is still alive, delay would not come in his way because of the reason that law of limitation has no application. On the other hand, if because of such delay dispute no longer remains alive and is to be treated as "dead", then it would be non-existent dispute which cannot be referred. x x x x x 44. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry. 45. On the application of the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the High Court correctly decided the issue holding that the reference at such a belated stage i.e. after fourteen years of termination without any justifiable explanation for delay, the appropriate Government had no jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non-existing dispute." 36. The facts of the present case are somewhat similar to the facts as in the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr. as in the present case also in respect of an alleged termination said to have been made on 01.10.1991 the reference was made on 29.03.2014 i.e. after a lapse of more than two decades there would be little reason to believe that there existed a live dispute when the reference was made and for this reason also the award passed by the Labour Court more particularly the directions issued for reinstating the respondent-workman in service with effect from the date of termination and further holding him entitled to 25% of the back wages and also full back wages from the date of the award cannot be sustained. 37. In view of the foregoing discussion the award dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Jhansi in Adjudication Case No.62 of 2014 is held to be legally unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 38. The writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. ---------- (2019)12 ILR A1292 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. 4 All. Committee of Management Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Basti & Anr. Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal Alld. & Ors. 1293 THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. Writ-C No. 65580 of 2015 Committee of Management Urban CoOperative Bank Ltd. Basti & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Debt Recovery Tribunal Allahabad & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Bhim Sen Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Deciding question of maintainability by Registrar of Tribunal - an issue which can be decided only by appropriate forum and not by ministerial staff, more so when no such provision is existing in statute empowering Registrar to take a decision on the question of maintainability. (Para 4) Petition filed by petitioners before Debts Recovery Tribunal - returned by Registrar - on the ground of maintainability - Registrar has gone to the extent of disregarding the judgements , Narendra Kanti Lal Shah Vs. Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies & M. Babu Rao and others Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others , observing that judicial explanation does not become binding unless rules are subsequently modified to accommodate need for change - This approach and understanding on the part of Registrar speaks about not only impertinence but lack of judicial knowledge wherein it can ignore verdict of two High Courts on the ground that judgment itself is not binding unless rules are modified. (Para 3 & 5) Held:- Order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal set aside - Registrar of Debts Recovery Tribunal directed to register the original application filed by petitioners - it will be open to Tribunal to record deficiencies/ objections whatever it finds, where after final decision on correctness of those deficiencies/ objections will be taken by Tribunal. (Para 6) Writ Petition allowed. (E-7) List of cases cited: - 1.Narendra Kanti Lal Shah Vs. Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bombay High Court, 2.M. Babu Rao and others Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. & Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for parties we proceed to decide this writ petition at this stage, since only short legal issue in involved in this writ petition. 3. The petition filed by petitioners before Debts Recovery Tribunal has been returned by Registrar on the ground of maintainability vide order dated 29.09.2015, which is challenged in present writ petition. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, despite repeated query, could not show any provision under which question of maintainability can be decided by Registrar of Tribunal. This is an issue which can be decided only by appropriate forum and not by ministerial staff, moreso when no such provision is existing in statute empowering Registrar to take a decision on the question of maintainability. 5. We also find some impertinence on the part of Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad inasmuch as petitioners it appears placed reliance on a 1294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Narendra Kanti Lal Shah Vs. Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, delivered on 12.12.2003 and a judgment of Andra Pradesh High Court in M. Babu Rao and others Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others, delivered on 05.07.2005 but Registrar has gone to the extent of disregarding aforesaid judgments observing that judicial explanation does not become binding unless rules are subsequently modified to accommodate need for change. This approach and understanding on the part of Registrar speaks about not only impertinence but lack of judicial knowledge wherein it can ignore verdict of two High Courts on the ground that judgment itself is not binding unless rules are modified. It is something like that where a provision is declared ultra vires by a Court but executive may say that since provision so declared has not been removed from statute book by legislature, therefore, he is bound to follow such provision. We, therefore, condemn this attitude and approach on the part of Registrar in disregarding judgments of two High Courts in such manner. 6. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 29.09.2015 is hereby set aside. We further direct that original application filed by petitioners shall be registered by Registrar of Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned. However, it will be open to Tribunal to record deficiencies/ objections whatever it finds, whereafter final decision on correctness of those deficiencies/ objections will be taken by Tribunal. ---------- Disclaimer:-The publication of December-2019 is likely to be revised.