AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.R. Tuli, J.—Suraj Bhan Tayagi, respondent in this appeal filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of the Joint Secretary to Government, Haryana, Co-operative Department, Chandigarh, dated 18th November, 1968, by which he set aside the orders of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ambala, and the Cane Commissioner, Haryana, exercising the powers of Registrar, Co-operative Societies.
Suraj Bhan claimed that he was the Secretary of the appellant-society and the members of the managing committee obtained from him a letter of resignation from his post as Secretary of the Society on 11th July, 1966, by coercion and unlawful methods. Or 14th December, 1966, he made an application to the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh u/s 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), for referring the dispute for decision u/s 56 of the Act. The dispute was referred to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies as an arbitrator who gave his award in favour of Suraj Bhan on 9th August, 1968, holding that he did not tender his resignation voluntarily and of his own free will and that he should be paid his emoluments within thirty days of the date of the award. The appellant filed an appeal against the award u/s 68 of the Act but the same was dismissed by the Cane Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, on 8th October, 1968. The appellant then filed a revision before the State Government u/s 69 of the Act which was allowed by the Joint Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development Department, on 18th November, 1968. Suraj Bhan thereafter filed the writ petition in this Court challenging the legality and the correctness of the order of the Revising Authority.
The writ petition was contested only by the appellant Society and the train contention raised was that the dispute between the Society and Suraj Bhan could not be referred to arbitration under sections 55 and 56 of the Act as this dispute did not relate to the constitution, management or business of the appellant-Society. The learned Single Judge repelled this submission and held that the dispute had been rightly referred for decision to arbitration by the Registrar. The learned Judge also held that the decision of the Registrar was final u/s 55(3) of the Act and could not be interfered with in revision u/s 69 of the Act. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the order of the Revising Authority was quashed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the provisions of section 55 of the Act and has strongly urged that the matter of dismissal or removal from service of an employee is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the Co-operative Society and, therefore, is not referable to arbitration by the Registrar. Section 58 of the Act is in these terms:-
Disputes which may be referred to arbitration:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society arises-
(a) among members, past members or persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or
(b) between a member, past member or persons claiming through a members, past member and deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or liquidator, past or present or
(c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, or
(d) between the society and any other co-operative society, between a Society and liquidator of another society or between the liquidator of one society and the liquidator of another society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely-
(a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;
(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society
(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative Society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.
This matter was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra etc. Vs. K.S. Dalipsinghji and Another etc., wherein their Lordships held that the dispute concerning the alteration of a number of conditions of service of the workmen could not be referred to arbitration under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, but had to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal dealing with an industrial dispute. Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Act is in identical terms as section 55 of the Act. The dispute between a co-operative society and its. employees concerning the dismissal or removal from service doss not in any way, relate to the constitution, management or business of society and it was so held by a Division Bench of this Court in The Jullundur Transport Co-operative Society, Jullundur v. The Punjab State AIR 1959 Pb. 31. The matter was argued before me in Messrs Bhatinda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhatinda v. The State of Punjab (1969)71 PLR 752, in which I ex-myself as under:-
From the language of this section it is clear that the dispute which can be referred to arbitration must be a dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co operative society and must be between the persons or classes of persons mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) describes the disputes which shall be deemed to relate to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society in clauses (a), (b) and (c) from which it is evident that a dispute between the co-operative society and any of its employees arising out of the removal from service, or dismissal, or supersession in regard to promotion is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society for the settlement of which the only mode provided is arbitration u/s 55 of the Act. This section, therefore does not provide that any dispute between the management of a co-operative society and its employees concerning their conditions of employment or removal from service or supersession in matters of promotions has to be referred to arbitration for its settlement and does not bar the reference of such a dispute for adjudication u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provided other conditions exist for such reference.
Against that judgment, an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent was filed (L.P.A. No. 342 of 1969) which was dismissed by a Division Bench on July 16, 1970. The judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge have all been considered by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above and by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s The Bhatinda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhatinda v. The State of Punjab and others LPA No. 312 of 1969. (L.P.A. No. 312 of 1969, decided on July 16, 1970) and on the basis of these judgments we hold that the order of the Revising Authority quashing the decision of the Cane Commissioner as Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and of the Assistant Registrar was correct The matter could not be referred for decision to the Assistant Registrar as arbitrator and, therefore, the award made by the Assistant Registrar and upheld by the Registrar, was without jurisdiction. The same was rightly set aside by the revising Authority.
The Learned Counsel for the respondents has urged that u/s 55(3) of the Act the decision of the Registrar in respect of the question whether a dispute referred to him u/s 55 is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a co-operative society has been made final and cannot be called in question in any court For this reason, the Learned Counsel submits that no revision was competent against the decision of the Registrar making a reference of the dispute to arbitration by the Assistant Registrar and that order could not be set aside by the revising authority. We regret our inability to accept this submission. In the first place, no order of the Registrar has been produced on the record to show that he ever decided that the dispute referred to him was a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of the appellant co-operative society, which could be referred to arbitration, and in the second place the order of the Registrar is final subject to the order passed in revision u/s 69 of the Act. The order has been made final for the purposes of the Act and cannot be called in question in any Court which clearly shows that the Revising Authority is not the Court. It has also not been shown that the revision against that order was not competent u/s 69 of the Act. The decision, which has been made final, has to be arrived at by the Registrar after considering the matter judicially. If on receipt of an application by one of the parties, the dispute is referred to arbitration, it cannot amount to a decision by the Registrar that it was a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of the co-operative society. In his writ petition, the respondent only stated that be made an application to the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, u/s 55 of the Act referring the dispute to him under sections 55 and 56 of the said Act and that on that application the Cane Commissioner referred the dispute to respondent No. 4 Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ambala.) There is no allegation that before making the reference to the Assistant Registrar as arbitrator, the Registrar ever decided that the dispute involved was a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of the appellant Society. It cannot, therefore, be held that the Revising Authority u/s 69 of the Act was not competent to decide whether the dispute could be referred to arbitration u/s 55 and 56 of the Act. The decision of the Revising Authority was within its jurisdiction and valid. The learned Single Judge did not advert to the fact as to whether the Registrar had given any decision u/s 55(3) of the Act with regard to the nature of the dispute which could or could not be referred to arbitration.
For the reasons given above, this appeal is accepted and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside, but we leave the parties to bear their own costs.