Holding the Sole Arbitrator’s award on reinstatement of N Satyanarayan as the MD of the apex body of labor co-ops NLCF, as valid and within the law, the Delhi High Court stopped short of levying a punitive charge on the apex body.
“There is no illegality, much less patent illegality or perversity in the impugned award. I would have been inclined to award punitive costs in this matter. However, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner is the National Labour Cooperative Federation of India, I refrain from doing so”, said the learned High Court judge in his Order.
“The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. All miscellaneous applications stand disposed of”, he concluded citing several instances of valid interpretation of Section 50 of the MSCS Act by the Sole Arbitrator Sapan Kumar Mishra.
It bears recalling that NLCF Vice-Chairman Narendra Rana called the board meeting in Pune on 3rd December 2021 without keeping MD N Satyanarayana or Chairman in the loop. Both Chairman Ashok Dabas and CE N Satyanarayan were removed.
The meeting was attended by Sanjiv Kushalkur, Amit Bajaj, V V P Nair, W Z Tekam, and others but Ashok Dabas, Government Nominee Vivek Chaturvedi, NCDC representative were conspicuous by their absence.
The board took far-reaching decisions during the meeting. W Z Tekam was made the officiating Chairman after removing Ashok Dabas. Vinay Kumar Chauhan who was on deputation at Warehousing Development Regulatory Authority (WDRA) was given the charge of Managing Director by removing N Satyanarayana.
The co-opted director Arun Tomar has been removed and the Nafed government nominee Ashok Thakur was co-opted by the board.
Hon’ble Justice C.Hari Shankar observed, “The interpretation, by the learned arbitrator, of Section 50 of the MSCS Act and the consequent decision of the learned arbitrator to hold the convening of the 141st meeting of the BOD of the NLCF to be illegal and, consequently, to strike down the decisions taken in the said meeting, entirely commend themselves to judicial acceptance.”
“This, in fact, is a typical instance of the case in which the arbitral award ought to have been gracefully accepted. Dragging such awards to Courts unnecessarily clogs the system and results in complete disservice to the 1996 Act and its very intent and purpose”, he observed.
There was no show cause notice and no explanation sought from N Satyanarayana. There was no specific charge against him by the Board. Neither was he suspended. Both the Sole Arbitrator and the Hon High Court have given unambiguous judgment calling his expulsion not commensurate with the law of the land.
Satyanarayana has, meanwhile, joined the office. Talking to Indian Cooperative, he said that he would continue in the current role only if he could make a difference. A peace-loving man by temperament, he also wishes to enlist the support of the Board which removed him unceremoniously.