(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. The present appeal arises from the order dated 26.6.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2540 of 2012, whereby the petition has been dismissed.
2. Heard Mr.B.S. Patel, learned Counsel for the appellant.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that as per Section 50 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) the statutes provide for the employer duly to make deduction from the salary. The State Government at an earlier point of time in the year 1962-63 had issued Circular for enforcement of such statutory provisions. Thereafter when it was not being abided by or respected, the appellant herein made representation, which has not been granted. Hence, the petition was preferred before the learned Single Judge of this Court and the matter was not properly considered. Hence, the present appeal.
4. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if the employer makes deduction as per the agreement from the salary of the employee concerned, such could facilitate the bank for regulating the same and the litigations could be curtailed against the employee and, therefore, the earlier circular in the year 1962-63 was in larger interest of the members as well as the Cooperative Banks, but the said aspect is not considered. Hence, this Court may interfere in the present appeal.
5. In our view, it is not a matter where only Section 50 provides enabling power for the employer to make deduction, but the same is coupled with the provisions of Sub-section (3), which provides that in a case where there is a failure on the part of the employer to make deduction, there is remedy of moving the matter to the Registrar for recovery of the amount from as arrear of land revenue on a certificate being issued by the Registrar. The pertinent aspect is that the Registrar has to hold inquiry in this regard and thereafter, if he finds that the amount so due shall rank in priority in respect of such liability of the employer, then the same is to be recovered and certificate to be issued. If the mandatory direction is issued it may result into nullifying the effect of Sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the Act. Therefore, when the Act itself provides for a specific remedy under Section 50(3), in a given case, the petitioner Bank can approach before the Registrar and at that stage the inquiry may be held and certificate may be issued thereafter, but it is not a case where the mandamus deserves to be issued to the State, directing the deduction to be made by an employer in all circumstances only when the requisition is so made without further examination of the said aspect by the competent authority as per Section 50(3) of the Act.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the ultimate decision taken by the learned single Judge for dismissal of the petition, does not deserve to be interfered with.
7. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Jayant Patel, J.) (C. L. Soni, J.) vinod