AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 702 wordsBal Raj Tuli, J.—The Respondent, Gian Singh, filed a suit against the Petitioner, Jullundur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.; challenging his dismissal from service. On behalf of the Petitioner-bank two preliminary objections were taken, (i) that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the matter should have been referred to arbitration u/s 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961; (hereinafter called the Act), and (ii) that u/s 70 of the Act the suit could not be filed without giving three months'' notice to the Petitioner-bank, which admittedly had not been given. We have today decided Mustafabad Cane Growers Co-operates Society Ltd., v. Suraj Bhan Tyagi and Ors. L.A.P. No. 250 of 1970 decided on 17th December, 1970, where in we have held that the dispute between a co-operative society and an employee arising out of the conditions of his service, including dismissal or removal from service is not referable u/s 55 of the Act. As such, a dispute of this kind can be tried in a civil Court or by an industrial court on a reference by the State Government. There is, therefore, no merit in the first point raised on behalf of the Petitioner-bank.
We also do not find any substance in the second point urged on behalf of the Petitioner-bank. Section 79 of the Act is in these terms: -
Notice necessary in suits.-No suit shall be instituted against a co-operative society 6r any of its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the society until the expiration of three months next after notice in writting has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the Plaintiff and the relief which he claims, and the plaint shall contain a. statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphasises that the words "in respect of any act touching the business of the society'' only refer to the Words "any of its officers" and not to the "co-operative society''. It is, therefore, submitted that any kind of suit against a co-operative society cannot be instituted until the expiration of three months next after the notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office stating the cause of "action, the rame, description and place of residence of the Plaintiff and the relief which he claims, whereas a suit against any of its officers will require compliance of a notice prescribed in Section 79 only if it arises out of an act touching the business of the society. We are unable to agree to this submission. In our opinion the notice is required to be delivered only if the suit against a co-operative society arises out of any act touching its business and not in every suit. The Registrar has been given certain powers to supervise and control the working and, business of the co-operative society in order to see that it is carried on in accordance with the principles of cooperation and according to the provisions of. the Act. He is not concerned with other activities of the co-operative societv and its disputes with the strangers or its employees arising out of their service conditions. It is, therefore, not necessary to serve a notice as prescribed in Section 79 on the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as he has no jurisdiction in the matter. The Legislature only intended the delivery of notice to the Registrar in order to enable him to mediate with the co-operative society for settling the claim of the Plaintiff who intended to file the suit. The power of the Registrar can be invoked for this purpose only if he has jurisdiction in the matter and he can exercise his power in that behalf to compel the co-operative society to decide the matter in certain manner. If he cannot exercise that power, then there is no point in giving a notice to him before filing any suit against the co-operative society.
For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
