9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court 2. Definition of "Officer" under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 3. Applicability of Rule 115 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936 4. Interpretation of "Dispute touching the business of a society" 5. Interaction between the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 and the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchases) Act, 1953 Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court The primary issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit arising out of a disciplinary proceeding held by a Cane Growers' Cooperative Society against its employee. The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction. It was concluded that the dispute arising out of disciplinary proceedings resulting in the dismissal of an employee of the society cannot be said to be a dispute touching the business of the society. Therefore, such disputes do not fall under the compulsory arbitration provision of Rule 115 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936. 2. Definition of "Officer" under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 The court examined whether the first respondent, a supervisor in charge of a manure godown, could be considered an "officer" under Section 2(d) of the 1912 Act. The definition includes a chairman, secretary, treasurer, member of the committee, or other person empowered under the rules or bye-laws to give directions in regard to the business of the society. The court found that the first respondent was not an officer as he did not have the authority to give directions in regard to the business of the society. He was merely a supervisor drawing a salary of Rs. 150 per month and was not empowered by any rules or bye-laws to give such directions. 3. Applicability of Rule 115 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936 Rule 115 provides that any dispute touching the business of a registered society between specified parties shall be decided by the Registrar or by arbitration. The court held that this rule was not applicable in this case because the dispute did not involve an "officer" of the society, as the first respondent was not classified as such. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court was not ousted by Rule 115. 4. Interpretation of "Dispute touching the business of a society" The court referred to previous judgments to interpret the term "business" in this context. It concluded that "business" does not mean the general affairs of the society but refers to the actual trading or commercial activities the society is authorized to undertake. Consequently, a dispute arising from disciplinary action against an employee does not touch the business of the society and therefore does not fall under Rule 115. 5. Interaction between the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 and the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchases) Act, 1953 The court clarified that the 1953 Act, which regulates the supply and purchase of sugarcane, does not override the provisions of the 1912 Act. The 1953 Act was enacted to regulate relations between cane-growers and sugar factories and does not affect the jurisdictional provisions of the 1912 Act regarding disputes involving cooperative societies. The High Court's reliance on the 1953 Act was found to be misplaced, as it neither repeals nor replaces the 1912 Act. Conclusion The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the matter was remanded to the learned district judge for expeditious disposal.
|
