AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Eraniel
rejecting I.A. No. 1077 of 2011 in O.S. No. 120 of 2010 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first respondent
herein filed the aforesaid suit questioning the inter-se seniority in the second and third respondent Co-operative Bank herein. Those Co-operative
Banks are the first and second defendants in the suit. The third defendant is the Deputy Registrar of the Co-Operative Societies, Thuckalay. The
fourth defendant is the revision petitioner herein.
The revision petitioner/fourth defendant in the aforesaid suit filed an Application in I.A. No. 1077 of 2011 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC
seeking to reject the plaint on the sole ground that there is a bar of suit in Civil Court u/s 156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act but the
same was rejected by the Trial Court.
In my view, the Trial Court has correctly dismissed the Application in view of the judgment of this Court in Somasundaram Vs. Liyakat Ali and
another, of the Judgment is extracted hereunder:
Even if the suit is of Civil nature, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the remedy is only through Co-operative Societies
Act or Industrial Disputes Act.
Learned counsel further submitted that u/s 156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the suit is not maintainable.
For, the Orders passed by the Registrar or Authorities under the said Act are considered to be done in good faith. A reading of section 156 of the
said Act reads thus:
Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts:-
Not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no order or award passed, decision or action taken on or direction
issued under this Act by an arbitrator, a liquidator, the Registrar or an Officer authorised or empowered by him, the Tribunal or the Government or
any Officer subordinate to them, shall be liable to be called in question in any court and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of
anything which is done on intended to be done by or under this Act."" A reading of the above section makes it clear that to get protection under the
Act, the Authorities under that Act must pass order or award for which they are empowered under the Act.
It is only those powers which they are asked to do under that Act and impounded from Civil Action, cannot be called in question in a civil suit. I
asked learned counsel for the appellant whether the Registrar has got jurisdiction to decide the inter se seniority between the two employees.
He was not in a position to show me the provision of law regarding the same. He brought to my notice various Rules framed under the Co-
operative Societies Act.
But, they are not concerned with dispute as regards inter se seniority between two employees.
The powers given to the Registrar are only of disciplinary character, where he can withhold promotion, etc.,.
Admittedly, this is not a case of disciplinary proceedings. Once it is found that the Registrar was not action under any provisions of the Act, he has
to decide the inter se seniority only in accordance with law.
It is a common law right. Hence, the bar u/s 156 of the Co-operative Societies A ct has no application to the facts of this case.
Further, if the inter se seniority cannot be decided under the Act, it cannot be said that any decision by the Registrar is also in good faith.
The powers of the Registrar and the Authorities under the Act are provided in that statute, and they should exercise the powers in accordance with
the same, and they cannot go beyond that.
Any power exercised beyond the statute cannot be said to be in good faith. For that reason also, the power u/s 156 of the Act has not application.
Following the aforesaid judgment, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.