TMI Blog1979 (1) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cooperative Societies Act, came to be governed by the said Act. 4. By Notification. No. BIR-1362-5-H, dated March 2, 1963, published in the Gujarat Gazette in March 1963, the Government of Gujarat directed under Section 2(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act 11 of 1947) that all the provisions of the said Act shall apply with effect from March 15, 1963 to the business of banking by Cooperative Banks in the Saurashtra and Kutch areas of the State, registered and deemed to be registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by the termination of his service, the second respondent approached the appellant's Dasada's Branch by a letter, dated August 20, 1962, stating that since his services were terminated illegally by way of victimisation, he should be reinstated in the service. 6. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an application in the Labour Court at Rajkot, alleging that his service had been illegally and maliciously terminated as an act of victimisation on account of his trade union activities. He prayed for setting aside the order of his termination of service and for reinstatement with full back wages. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (Bombay Act VII of 1925)...and is engaged in the business of banking. (iii) It is not a purely legal plea but a mixed plea of law and fact, and cannot be determined on the basis of material already on the record. 13. We, therefore, take it that the appellant is a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of banking and, as such, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is applicable to it by virtue of the; aforesaid Notification dated March 2, 1963, issued by the State Government under Section 2(4) of that Act. 14. The arguments of Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the appellant, may be summarised as follows: (i) The case is governed by the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereafter called the Act of 1961) and not by the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (hereafter referred to as the Act of 1925). (ii) The phrase any dispute touching...the business of the Society , particularly the word touching therein, is of very wide amplitude. It would comprehend any matter which relates to, or concerns or affects the business of the Society. Every society, ex-necessitate employs some servants for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been made to Jullundur Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Punjab State. (iv) The scope of the expression any dispute touching the business of the Society , occurring in Section 54 of the Act of 1925/or Section 96 of the Act of 1961 is limited to disputes directly relating to the actual trading or commercial activities of the Society. This expression does not take in a dispute between the Society and its employee relating to, the conditions of his employment, which will include the termination of his employment. This point is concluded by the decision of this Court in Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (1969)IILLJ698SC , which follows the ratio of its earlier decision in Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jungraj Jain [1969] 1 S.C.R. 885. In view of these decisions, the ratio of Farkhundali's case (ibid) decided by the Bombay High Court, is no longer good law. (v) The expression management in Section 96 of the Act of 1961, means the Board of Directors , or the Board of Trustees or the Managing Committee or Executive Body which has the overall control of the affairs and business of the Society, and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignificant to note that the phrase any dispute touching the constitution...or business of the Society is a common feature of both the aforesaid Sections. We emphasise this fact, because it is this common feature, rather than the points of difference between the two Sections, that holds the key to a correct solution of the problem before us. 20. From a conspectus of the decisions cited at the Bar, we may devise two broad tests to determine the points in controversy in the instant case. First, whether the expression any dispute spoken of in Section 54 of the Act of 1925, and Section 96 of the Act of 1961, is one which is capable of being resolved by the Registrar or his nominee under the relevant Cooperative Societies Act ? Second, whether a dispute raised by a servant against his employer, the Cooperative Society, for setting aside his removal from service on the ground that it was an act of victimisation and for reinstatement in service with back wages, is one touching the management or business of the Society within the contemplation of the said provisions ? 21. As regards the first test, it is to be noted that the expression any dispute has not been defined in the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il courts, will fall within the scope of the expression any dispute used in Section 96(1). 23. Another definite pointer to the above being the right construction of any dispute is available in Sub-section (3) of Section 98 which provides: Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 96, the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in regard to any dispute, if the question at issue between a society and' a claimant or between different claimants, is one involving complicated question of law or fact, until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties or by the society. If any such suit is not instituted within two months from the Registrar's order suspending proceedings, the Registrar shall take action as is provided in Sub-section (1). 24. It is noteworthy that this sub-section is substantially in the same terms as the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act of 1925, extracted earlier. 25. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act of 1925 corresponding to Sub-section (3) of Section 98 of the Act of 1961 unmistakably shows that the compulsory arbitration by the, Registrar, on a reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ensure social justice. Such rights which do not stem from the contract of employment can be enforced only in the Labour Court constituted under the B.I.R. Act. The Labour Court is competent to grant the relief of reinstatement claimed by the respondent, while in view of Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, then in force, the Civil Court was not competent to grant that relief. 29. The dispute was raised by the second respondent by writing an approach letter to his employer, the appellant, as required by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. In substance, it was an industrial dispute. It was not restricted to a claim under the contract or agreement of employment. The Civil Court cannot grant the reliefs claimed by the second respondent. As rightly submitted by Mr. Rama Reddy, if a Court is incapable of granting the relief claimed, normally, the proper construction would be that it is incompetent to deal with the matter. 30. The matter can be looked at from another angle, also. The law of industrial disputes or industrial relations is a special law dealing with rights and obligations specially created by it. As against this, the provision in Section 54 of the Act of 1925 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oposition that whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects, such as laying down the conditions of service of its employee, can be said to be a part of its business, it would appear that a dispute relating to conditions of service of the workmen employed by the society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the society.... Thus it is clear that in respect of the dispute regarding the alteration of various conditions of service, the Registrar or other person dealing with it under Section 62 of the Act is not competent to grant the relief claimed by the workmen at all. On the principle laid down by this Court in the case of the Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 358 of 1967 dated 29-8-68, [1969]1SCR887 therefore, it must be held that this dispute is not a dispute covered by the provisions of Section 61 of the Act. Such a dispute is not contemplated to be dealt with under Section 62 of the Act and must therefore, be held to be outside the scope of Section 61. 34. The observations quoted above, negate contention (ii) advanced by Mr. Dholakia. 35. It however, remains to be considered w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it may, what has been directly bidden out-of-bounds for the Registrar by the very scheme and object of the Act, cannot be indirectly inducted by widening the connotation of 'management'. A construction free from contextual constraints, having the effect of smuggling into the circumscribed limits of the expression any dispute , a dispute which from its very nature is incapable of being resolved by the Registrar, has to be eschewed. Thus considered, a dispute raised against the Society by its discharged servant claiming reliefs, such as reinstatement in service with back wages, which are not enforceable in a Civil Court, is outside the scope of the expression touching the management of the Society used in Section 96(1) of the Act of 1961, and the Registrar has no jurisdiction to deal with and determine it. Such a dispute squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the B.I.R. Act. 40. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to argue as a last resort that the relief sought by the second respondent could be granted by the Registrar by relaxing or moulding the Staff Regulations and Bye-laws which lay down conditions of service governing the employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
