Madrasdated High Court · 2008

K.Chennimalai..Petitioner in WP 6219/2000Kandasamy Ganesan..Petitioner in WP 6220/2000The Salem District CentralCo-operative Bank Ltd.,Cherry Road, Salem-1 rep. by itsManaging Director..Petitioner in WP 20964/2000,21003/2000K.A.Mohammed Sheriff..Petitioner in WP 19704/2001-vs- 1.R.J.B. Leoraj2.The Coimbatore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.Rep. by its Special OfficerCoimbatore3.C.S. Sarada4.P.R. Rajendran5.V. Seethalakshmi6.K. Ganapathy7.D. Murugesan8.A. Padmanabhan9.A. Saraswathi10.R. Lakshmanan11.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. SocietiesCoimbatore ... Respondents1.The Dy.Registrar of co-operative Societies,Coimbatore.2.The Special Officer,Coimbatore City Co-operative Bank,Jail Road, Coimbatore.3.S.Sridharan4.G.Ramasamy5.P.Arumugam..Respondents in WP 10161/1995 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1.The Additional Registrar(Marketing, Planning and Development) Office of the Registrarof Co-op.Societies,Madras-102.K.Giruvaiah..Respondents in WP 14680/19961.Salem District Central Co-operativeBank rep. by its Managing Director,Salem...1st Respondent in WP Nos. 6219 and 6220/2000 and 2nd Respondent in WP 19704/2001The Deputy Registrar of Co-operativeSocities, Salem Circle, Salem...2nd Respondent in WP 6219,6220/2000 and 1st Respondentin WP No.20964/2000,21003/2000and 19704/2001N.ThirunavukkarasuT.Sidharthan..Respondents 3 & 4 in WP 6219/2000K.A.Mohamed SherifK.Raja..Respondents 3 & 4 in WP 6220/2000K.A.Mohamed SheriffK.RajaKandaswami Ganesan..Respondent 2 to 4 inWP 20964/2000N.ThirunavukarasuT.SidharthanK.Chennimalai..Respondents 2 to 4 inWP 21003/2000Kandaswami Ganesan..3rd Respondent in19704/2001Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingto issue a writ of Certiorari 1. calling for the records on thefile of the eleventh respondent relating to the impugned orderdated 31.8.1994 passed by the 11th respondent in A.R.C. No. 1198 /1991-92 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. calling for the records on the file of the first respondentrelating to the impugned order bearing No.30/95-96 S.A.Pa-1 dated30.5.95 passed by the first respondent and quash the same(W.P.10161/95)3. calling for the records of the first respondent inR.C.No.57765/94-SF dated 24.5.1996 quash the same (w.P.NO.14680/96)4. calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent relating tothe proceedings dated 29.2.2000 in arbitration reference caseNo.10101/98 and 9657/98 respectively and quash the same.(W.P.No.6219/00 and 6220/00.5. calling for the records in ARC Nos.9657 of 1998 and 10101 of1998 respectively on the file of the Deputy Registrar of CooperativeSocieties Salem cirle , Salem the first respondent herein and quashthe order passed therein dated 29.2.2000 (W.P.Nos.20964/00 and21003/00) and6. to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent toimplement the order of the Ist Respondent in proceedingsA.R.C.NO.9657/98 dated 29.2.2000 and to give promotion to thepetitioner as Assistant Manager with all the Benefits from the dateon which the 3rd Respondent was promoted as Assistant Manager(W.P.No.19704/01)For Petitioner : Mr. Venkatesan for M/s Aiyar and Doliain W.P.Nos.17802/94 and 10161/95M/s. R. Parthiban in W.P.No.14680/96M/s.Muthumani Doraisami in W.P.Nos.6219and 6220/00M/s. M.R. Raghavanin W.P.Nos.20964, 21003/00Mr.C. Selvaraj, Senior Counsel for M/s. S. Mani in W.P.No.19704/01 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents : Mr. Ravichandran for Mr. Satish Parasaran for R1M/s. R. Parthiban for (R2)C.S. Sarada (R3)P.R. Rajendran (R4)V. Seethalakshmi (R5)K. Ganapathy (R6)D. Murugesan (R7)A. Padmanabhan (R8)A. Saraswathi (R9)R. Lakshmanan (R10) in W.P.17802/94Spl. Government Pleader (w) for R11in W.P.No.17802/94 and for Ist Respondentin W.P.10161/95, 14680/96, 20964/00,21003/00, 19704/01 and for 2nd Respondentin W.P.Nos.6219 and 6220/00.M/s. N.G. Kalaiselvi for 2nd respondentM/s.V. Manohar for Respondent 3 to 5 inW.P.No.10161/95Mr.P. Chandrasekar for 2nd Respondent inW.P.No.14680/96 M/s. M.R. RaghavanK. Vasuvenkat for ISt Respondent M/s. Aiyar and Dolia for Respondent 3 and4 in W.P.Nos.6219 and 6220/00M/s. N.s. VaradhachariN.V. Vasudevan for 4th Respondent K.A. Mohamed Sherif for 2nd Respondentand Raja for 3rd Respondent inW.P.No.20964/00M/s. Muthumani DoraisamiKandavadivel Doraisami for 4th Respondent in W.P.No.21003/00 and 3rdRespondent in W.P.No.19704/01T. Sidharthan for 3rd Respondent M/s. K. Akilandeswari for 2nd Respondentin W.P.No.21003/00Mr.M.R. Raghavan for 2nd Respondent inW.P.No.19704/01 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDERK. CHANDRU, J.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties andperused the records.2.W.P. No. 17802 of 1994: 2.1.When this matter came up for disposal before the learnedsingle Judge on 31.7.2002, the learned single Judge framed twoquestions and directed the matter to be placed before the Hon'bleChief Justice for posting the same before an appropriate DivisionBench. Accordingly, the matter was posted before this DivisionBench on the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The twoquestions are as follows:-1.In matters relating to service conditions ofemployees of Cooperative Societies, whether theIndustrial Disputes Act (Special Law) or theCooperative Societies Act (General Law) isapplicable?2.Whether an employee of a Cooperative Societycan invoke the provisions of Section 90 and /orSection 152 / 153 (Appeal / Revision) forredressal of his service grievances?2.2.The reason for framing the two issues were an apparentconflict between the decisions rendered by this Court and referredby the learned Judge in his order are as follows:-(i)In Somasundaram v. Liyakat Ali [1997 (1) CTC4], S.S. Subramani, J. has held that ordersregarding inter-se seniority between employeesof Co-operative Societies is not an orderpassed under the Co-operative Societies Act,such seniority cannot be decided and the bar ofjurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 156is not attracted in matters relating todetermination of inter-se seniority ofemployees of Co-operative Societies and noremedy is available under the Industrial Act.As such, Civil Suit is maintainable.(ii)In K. Radhakrishnan v. Additional Registrar[2000 (II) CTC 147], P.Sathasivam, J. (as hethen was) has held that seniority is part ofservice conditions of employees which may beconstrued as an action under Special bye-lawsof the Union and a revision under Section 153of the Co-operative Societies Act ismaintainable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)In The Management of Madras Atomic PowerProject Employees' Consumers (Co-operativeStores Limited, Kalpakkam rep. by its SpecialOfficer v. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour(Appeal) Madras – 6 and 2 others [2000 (III)CTC 738], P.Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) hasheld that disciplinary action against paidservant of society is not a dispute underSection 90 or not one "touching business" ofthe society."3.When this matter came to be listed, at the request of themembers of the bar, several other writ petitions were also tagged onalong with this writ petition on the ground that the answer toquestions raised in this writ petition will have a bearing on theother writ petitions.4.Before venturing into the legal issues raised in thesewrit petitions, it is necessary to briefly refer to the factualaspect of each of the writ petition.4.1.In W.P. No. 17802 of 1994, there was a dispute betweenthe petitioner and the contesting respondent regarding seniority andpromotion and when the seniority list dated 11.11.1984 waspublished. Aggrieved by the said list, the first respondent fileda petition under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative SocietiesAct, 1983 in July 1991. The said dispute was taken on file by theDeputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore (11threspondent) and the said dispute was allowed by an order dated31.8.1994. As against the said order, the Co-operative Societyfiled an appeal u/s 152 before the Co-operative Tribunal. Buteven during the pendency of the same, the aggrieved privaterespondents moved this Court challenging the proceedings of theArbitrator.This writ petition was admitted on 26.10.1994.4.2.W.P. No. 10161 of 1995 is filed by three employees of theCo-operative Societies against the order of the first respondentDeputy Registrar in entertaining a petition under Section 90 of theCo-operative Societies Act and setting aside the promotion grantedin favour of respondents 2 to 4. This writ petition was admitted on08.8.1995.4.3.W.P. No. 6219 of 2000 is filed by an employee of the Co-operative Society against an order passed by the second respondentDeputy Registrar, Salem in entertaining a petition regardingpromotion granted to the writ petitioner by the Co-operative Societyand setting aside the same and also directing the respondents 3 and4 to be promoted to the post of Assistant Manager purporting to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exercise power under Section 90 of the Co-operative Societies Act.W.P. No. 21003 of 2000 was filed by the Management challenging thevery same order. 4.4.In W.P. No. 6220 of 2000, the petitioner, an employee ofthe Co-operative Society, challenges the order of the DeputyRegistrar made under Section 90 of the Co-operative Societies Act.By exercising power under Section 90 vide order dated 29.02.2000,the promotion of the writ petitioner was set aside and respondents 3and 4 were directed to be promoted. The very same order ischallenged by the Salem District Co-operative Bank in W.P. No. 20964of 2000. W.P. No. 19704 of 2001 is also filed by one MohammedSheriff challenging the very same order.4.5.W.P. No. 14680 of 1996 is filed by the RamanathapuramDistrict Central Co-operative Bank against a preliminary orderpassed by the first respondent (revisional authority) holding thatthe revision petition filed by the second respondent was prima faciemaintainable and the objection of the petitioner Bank was overruledvide order dated 24.5.1996. The said writ petition was admitted on09.10.1996.5.The following contentions were raised by Mr.G.Venkataramanof M/s Aiyar & Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerin W.P. 17802 of 2004:-(a)The disputes relating to terms of employment, workingconditions and disciplinary action would not come within'any dispute' under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and 'any dispute' provided fortherein is restricted in its scope to a dispute of civilnature which is capable of being resolved by the Registraror his nominee and does not take in an 'industrialdispute between the society and its workmen which underIndustrial Disputes Act is triable by Labour Court /Industrial Tribunal.(b)Industrial Disputes Act is a special law dealing with thespecial subject. Industrial disputes which in theirnature are essentially different from ordinary civildisputes between an employer and his employee governed bythe law of contract. Industrial disputes Act providesfor special machinery for adjudication of industrialdisputes. As against this, the Tamil Nadu Co-operativeSocieties Act is a general enactment and it must yield toIndustrial Disputes Act.(c)The scope of the expression 'any dispute' touching thebusiness of the Society occurring in Section 90 is limitedto disputes directly relating to actual trading, or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ commercial activities of the Society. This expressiondoes not take in dispute between the Society an itsemployee relating to conditions of his employment such asSeniority, promotion, revision of scale of pay, revisionof dearness allowance, disciplinary action, etc. (d)The expression 'Management' in Section 90 of the TamilNadu Co-operative Societies Act means as per Section 2(7)read with Section 33(1)(a), the Board of Directors inwhich the Management of the Society vests. It does notinclude individual workers or employees of the Society.The expression 'Management' does not take in the mattertouching the service conditions of the servants of theSociety such as their seniority, promotion or dismissal /termination from service.(e)Unless the State Legislature specifically by legislationbars the jurisdiction of the Labour Court / IndustrialTribunal as in the case of Karnataka Co-operativeSocieties Act or Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Actin regard to adjudication of terms of employment, workingconditions an disciplinary action against workmen of Co-operative Societies, the Industrial Tribunal / LabourCourt alone has jurisdiction to decide the disputes. Itcannot be taken as of now Section 90 provides for analternative forum.6.In addition to the above submissions, Mr. Vijay Narayan,learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.14680 of 1996 submitted that what applies to Section 90 of the Co-operative Societies Act will also apply to the revisional powersconferred under Section 153 of the Co-operative Societies Act.Therefore, the order impugned in that writ petition is liable to beset aside. 7.Before proceeding to deal with the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to refer to thespecific provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act with regard tosettlement of disputes, Appeals and Revisional powers.7.1.Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,1961 (Old Act) provided for settlement of disputes being referred tothe Registrar for a decision. It is clearly stated that anydispute touching the constitution of the committee or the Managementor the business of a registered society other than the disputeregarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committeeagainst the paid servant of the society, can be brought under thesaid Section. A similar provision has been made under Section 90 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (New Act). Inthat provision, a specific exclusion was made regarding thedisciplinary action taken by the competent authority constitutedunder Section 75(3) of the Act. 7.2.In the 1961 Act (Old Act), an appeal was provided underSection 96 as well as a revision was provided under Section 97. Abar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court was made under Section 100 ofthe Act. In the 1983 Act (New Act), an appeal is provided underSection 152 and a revision is made under Section 153 and there isalso a bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 156. Whilethe revisional powers under Section 97 of the 1961 Act (Old Act) wasof general nature, under the 1983 Act (New Act), Section 153includes revisional power over orders passed under Section 75(3)which deals with service conditions of the employees belonging tocommon cadre. While revision under Section 97 of the 1961 Old Actonly refers to the examination of record of any officer subordinateto the Registrar, the revisional power under Section 153 under the1983 New Act includes not only the revisional power over the orderspassed by the subordinates but includes the action taken by theBoard of Directors of the Society or any officer of the registeredsociety or of the competent authority constituted under Section 75(3) of the new Act. While the power under Section 73 (Old Act) orSection 90 (New Act) is more or less parimateria with each other,there is a vast difference between the revisional power underSection 97 (Old Act) compared to Section 153 (New Act). 8.This distinction will have to be kept in mind whilereferring to the decisions rendered under the Old Act.9.With this background, the decisions referred at the barcan be dealt with.10.A Full Bench of this Court in N.S. Madhava Rao and othersv. D.V.K. Surya Rao and others [AIR 1954 Madras 103] compared theprovisions found in the Madras Co-operative Societies Act 1912 andthe Madras Co-operative Societies Act 1932. It was held that thewords 'touching the business of the society' will cover a disputeconcerning election and the Deputy Registrar can deal with such adispute.11.In South Arcot Co-operative Motor Transport Society Ltd.(for ex-servicemen) Devanam-Pattinam, Cuddalore v. Syed Batchaand others [AIR 1961 Madras 217], a learned single Judge had heldthat the claim for retrenchment compensation cannot be claimed underSection 51 which dealt with disputes touching the business of theSociety. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.The Supreme Court vide its decision in Deccan MerchantsCoop. Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain [1969 (1) SCR 887] dealtwith the case of a tenant and the owner of the building, which wassubsequently acquired by a co-operative society, and held that sucha dispute cannot be brought under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act which is almost in parimateria with Section90 of our New Act. It also held that the term 'touching thebusiness' though may be wider in connotation, but the word 'dispute'found in that section covers only those disputes which are capableof being resolved by the Registrar or his nominee.13.The Supreme Court vide its decision in Coop. Central BankLtd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal [1969 (2) SCC 43] held inparagraph 7 as follows:-Para 7:"Applying these tests, we have no doubt at all thatthe dispute covered by the first issue referred tothe Industrial Tribunal in the present cases couldnot possibly be referred for decision to theRegistrar under Section 61 of the Act. The disputerelated to alteration of a number of conditions ofservice of the workmen which relief could only begranted by an Industrial Tribunal dealing with anindustrial dispute. The Registrar, it is clear fromthe provisions of the Act, could not possibly havegranted the reliefs claimed under this issue becauseof the limitations placed on his powers in the Actitself. It is true that Section 61 by itself does notcontain any clear indication that the Registrarcannot entertain a dispute relating to alteration ofconditions of service of the employees of aregistered society; but the meaning given to theexpression “touching the business of the society”, inour opinion, makes it very doubtful whether a disputein respect of alteration of conditions of service canbe held to be covered by this expression. Since theword “business” is equated with the actual trading orcommercial or other similar business activity of thesociety, and since it has been held that it would bedifficult to subscribe to the proposition thatwhatever the society does or is necessarily requiredto do for the purpose of carrying out its objects,such as laying down the conditions of service of itsemployees, can be said to be a part of its business,it would appear that a dispute relating to conditionsof service of the workmen employed by the societycannot be held to be a dispute touching the businessof the society...." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.It is significant to note that Section 61 of the AndhraPraesh Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court is more or less areproduction of Section 73 of the 1961 Tamil Nadu Act which is inparimateria of Section 90 of the 1983 Act. Therefore, thereasoning of the Supreme Court will have greater bearing on theissue on hand. 15.The Supreme Court once again, in Gujarat State Coop. LandDevelopment Bank v. P.R. Mankad [1979 (3) SCC 123] while dealingwith the term 'dispute' found in the Gujarat Co-operative SocietiesAct held that it did not include a dispute regarding a dischargedemployee of a co-operative society. The following passage found inparagraph 37 may be reproduced:-Para 37:"Be that as it may, what has been directly bidden“out-of-bounds” for the Registrar by the very schemeand object of the Act, cannot be indirectly inductedby widening the connotation of “management”. Aconstruction free from contextual constraints, havingthe effect of smuggling into the circumscribed limitsof the expression “any dispute”, a dispute which fromits very nature is incapable of being resolved by theRegistrar, has to be eschewed. Thus considered adispute raised against the Society by its dischargedservant claiming reliefs such as reinstatement inservice with back wages, which are not enforceable ina civil court, is outside the scope of the expression“touching the management of the Society” used inSection 96(1) of the Act of 1961, and the Registrarhas no jurisdiction to deal with and determine it.Such a dispute squarely falls within the jurisdictionof the Labour Court under the B.I.R. Act."16.Once again, the Supreme Court in U.P. Coop. Cane UnionFederation Ltd. v. Liladhar [1980 Supp SCC 437] dealt with asimilar provision found in U.P. Co-operative Societies Act andparagraphs 16 to 18 may be usefully extracted below:-Para 16:"Therefore, on the strength of the aforementioned twodecisions it has to be held that a dispute arisingout of a disciplinary proceeding resulting indismissal of an employee of the society cannot besaid to be a dispute touching the business of thesociety.Para 17:To some extent this conclusion can be reinforced byreference to the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,1965, which repealed and replaced the Cooperative https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Societies Act, 1912, in its application to the Stateof U.P. Section 70 of the 1965 Act provides forsettlement of disputes. The relevant portion reads asunder : “70. Disputes which may be referred toarbitration.—(1) Notwithstanding anythingcontained in any law for the time being inforce, if any dispute relating to theconstitution, management or the business of acooperative society other than a disputeregarding disciplinary action taken against apaid servant of a society arises— .…”Para 18:It will be crystal clear that while making astatutory provision for resolution of disputesinvolving cooperative societies by arbitration by theRegistrar, the legislature in terms excluded adispute relating to disciplinary action taken by thesociety against paid servants of the society from thepurview of the compulsory arbitration. It islegislative exposition of the topic under discussion.It must, however, be made distinctly clear that atthe relevant time 1912 Act was in force and thecontention has to be answered with reference to 1912Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is, however,difficult to believe that the 1965 Act which repealedand replaced the 1912 Act excluded from the field ofoperation that which was already included under therepealed Act. On the contrary it would appear thatwhat was implicit in the 1912 Act and the rulesframed thereunder that such a dispute did not touchthe business of the society and was not within thepurview of the compulsory arbitration, was madeexplicit by expressly excluding it from the field ofcompulsory arbitration."17.Further, once again, dealing with the very same provisionof the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, the Supreme Court vide itsdecision in Allahabad Distt. Cooperative Ltd. v. Hanuman Dutt Tewari[1981 (4) SCC 431] in paragraph 2 held as follows:-Para 2:"The expression “business of the society” has beenconstrued by several decisions of this Court. InDeccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. DalichandJugraj Jain it was pointed out that “the word‘business’ has been used in a narrower sense and itseems the actual trading or commercial or othersimilar business activity of the society which the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ society is authorised to enter into under the Act andthe Rules and its bye-laws”. In Cooperative CentralBank Ltd. v. Addl. Industrial Tribunal, A.P. it issaid “but the meaning given to the expression‘touching the business of the society’, in ouropinion, makes it very doubtful whether a dispute inrespect of alteration of conditions of service can beheld to be covered by this expression. Since the word‘business’ is equated with the actual trading orcommercial or other similar business activity of thesociety, and since it has been held that it would bedifficult to subscribe to the proposition thatwhatever the society does or is necessarily requiredto do for the purpose of carrying out its objects,such as laying down the conditions of service of itsemployees, can be said to be a part of its business,it would appear that a dispute relating to conditionsof service of the workmen employed by the societycannot be held to be dispute touching the business ofthe society”.18.When many state enactments dealing with Co-operativeSocieties made specific provisions entrusting power with theRegistrars of the Co-operative Societies to deal with disciplinaryaction taken against the employees of the Co-operative Societies,the Courts found that since the power was made under a specialenactment, it will necessarily exclude the jurisdiction of theauthorities under the Industrial Disputes Act to adjudicate suchdisputes. 19.Dealing with Section 55 of the M.P. Co-operative SocietiesAct, 1961, the Supreme Court in R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Coop.Marketing Federation Ltd. [1997 (5) SCC 125] in paragraph 3 held asfollows:-Para 3:".... Section 55 of the Societies Act gives power tothe Registrar to deal with disciplinary mattersrelating to the employees in the society or a classof societies including the terms and conditions ofemployment of the employees. Where a dispute relatesto the terms of employment, working conditions,disciplinary action taken by a society, or arisesbetween a society and its employees, the Registrar orany officer appointed by him, not below the rank ofAssistant Registrar, shall decide the dispute and hisdecision shall be binding on the society and itsemployees. As regards power under Section 64, thelanguage is very wide, viz., “Notwithstanding https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ anything contained in any other law for the timebeing in force any dispute touching the constitution,management or business of a society or theliquidation of a society shall be referred to theRegistry by any of the parties to the dispute.”Therefore, the dispute relating to the management orbusiness of the society is very comprehensive asrepeatedly held by this Court. As a consequence,special procedure has been provided under this Act.Necessarily, reference under Section 10 of theSocieties Act stands excluded...." 20.The Supreme Court further vide its judgment in YogendraPrasad v. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar andothers [1992 Supp (1) SCC 720] dealt with Section 48 of the Biharand Orissa Co-operative Societies Act 1935 and interpreted therevisional power of the Registrar. The following passages found inparagraphs 5 and 6 may be usefully extracted below:-Para 5:".... That apart, it is clear that the Registrar isthe final supervisory authority over the subordinateofficers exercising the powers or performing theduties under the Act. The language in Section 56 wascouched very widely without being hedged with anylimitation like the revisional powers under Section115 CPC or the similar language used in sister Actsin some other States like A.P. The reason appears tobe obvious. The order of the Deputy Registrar bylanguage of sub-section (6) of Section 48,undoubtedly shall be final. We are aware thatwhen the legislature gives “finality” to an order, itis normally not open to revision. But still it mustbe construed in the light of the scheme of the Act,its operation and resultant effect. The language inSection 56 is not hedged with any limitation of thefinality in sub-section (6) of Section 48. Thus wehold that the revisional power under Section 56 isindependent of the appellate powers under Section 48(6). The latter is amenable to revision by theRegistrar. The ratio of the Division Bench in DinDayal case1 is, therefore, not good law.Para 6:.... The proceedings under Section 48 are in thenature of a civil suit, otherwise cognisable by acivil court under Section 9 of the CPC. The statutehas taken out the jurisdiction of the civil court and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ expressly conferred on the Registrar or a personexercising the powers of the Registrar to decide thedispute touching the business or management of theSociety between its members, past members etc. ortheir office bearers, agent or officers or servantsof the Society etc. The proceedings under Section 40are not in substitution of Section 48, but areindependent of and in addition to the normal civilremedy under Section 48. The culpable negligence,misconduct, misappropriation, fraudulent conduct etc.are relevant facts to be established in theproceedings under Section 40. But that is not sounder Section 48. Therefore, mere initiation or anorder passed under Section 40 does not divest thejurisdiction or power of the Registrar under Section48 when it was referred to for a decision of thedispute. Exercise of the jurisdiction to pass anaward under Section 48(3) or revision under Section56 does not amount to double jeopardy."21.The Supreme Court while dealing with the power of theState of Haryana in exercising its power of revision under theHaryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 vide its decision inShahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Special Secretary toGovernment of Haryana Corporation [2006 (12) SCC 404] also referredto the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act providingfor revisional power on the Registrar and the State Government videparagraphs 20, 21 and 23, which reads as follows:-Para 20:"The said decision was followed by a Division Benchof the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Punjab StateHandloom Weavers Apex Society Ltd. v. State ofPunjab, stating: (Punj LR p. 85, para 5)“5. A perusal of the above provision showsthat the State Government as well as Registrarhave been empowered to examine the legality orpropriety of any decision or order passed by asociety. They can do so either suo motu or onthe application of a party to a reference. Thepower is not subject to any provision of therules or the bye-laws. It is in the nature of asupervisory jurisdiction conferred on theGovernment and the Registrar. In the very natureof things where an order has been passed by theRegistrar, the power vests in the StateGovernment.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The decision of the High Court rests on the lattercategory of the decisions, referred hereinbefore.Para 21:The revisional jurisdiction is akin to the appellatejurisdiction."Para 23:"Provisions for appeal or revision provide forstatutory remedies. The Appellate Authority or therevisional authority can exercise its appellate orrevisional jurisdiction provided it would bemaintainable in law."22.On the question of bar of jurisdiction on the power of theLabour Court vis-a-vis the revisional power of the Registrar, theSupreme Court in R.C. Tiwari's Case (cited supra) held that Section55 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act bars the jurisdiction ofthe Labour Court to deal with similar issues. But in so far asthe State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned, it has a separateIndustrial Disputes Act enacted by the State Legislature and hence,it may not have a general bearing in respect of other States unlessthere are special exclusions made in the respective State Co-operative Societies Acts. 23.While dealing with the question of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, excluding the jurisdiction of theIndustrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court clarified the legalposition in Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk ProducersSocieties Union Ltd. [2007 (9) SCC 109]. The relevant passagesfound in paragraphs 18 to 21 and 24 may be usefully reproducedbelow:- Para 18:"This aspect has been completely overlooked by theDivision Bench of the Karnataka High Court inVeerashaiva Coop.Bank (supra). It misled itself toan erroneous assumption that two decisions of thisCourt in R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Coop. MarketingFederation Ltd. AIR 1997 SC 2652 : (1997) 5 SCC 125 :1997 – II – LLJ – 236 and Sagarmal v. Distt. SahkariKendriya Bank Ltd., Madsaur and another (1997) 9 SCC354 : 1998 – III – LLJ (Suppl) – 157 laid down theproposition that once a specific procedure andeffective remedy is provided under the CooperativeSocieties Act, it ipso facto excluded the settlementof disputes under Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act. On that assumption, the High Court heldthat Section 70 of the KCS Act excluded thejurisdiction of Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals inregard to references under Section 10 of the ID Act.The High Court held so in view of Clause (d) of sub- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ section (2) of Section 70 which provided that anydispute between a cooperative society and itsemployees (past or present) in regard to terms ofemployment, working conditions and disciplinaryaction will be deemed to be a dispute to be decidedby the Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 70,overlooking the fact that Amendment Act 19 of 1976 bywhich Clause (d) was inserted in Section 70(2), hadnot received the assent of the President andtherefore the jurisdiction of the Registrar underSection 70(1) of the KCS Act as expanded by Section70(2)(d), could not prevail over the provisions ofthe ID Act. If the amendment to Section 70(2) by Act19 of 1976 should be read or construed as having theeffect of enabling Section 70(1) of the KCS Act toprevail over the provisions of the ID Act, then thesaid Amendment Act (Act 19 of 1976) would haverequired the assent of the President under Article254(2). But there was no such assent.Para 19:As the Division Bench had relied on two decisions ofthis Court in R.C. Tiwari (supra) and Sagarmal(supra), it is necessary to refer to them. But beforedoing so, we have to note that many a time, aprinciple laid down by this Court with reference tothe provisions of a particular State Act ismechanically followed to interpret cognate enactmentsof other States, without first ascertaining whetherthe provisions of the two enactments are identical orsimilar. This frequently happens with reference tothe laws relating to rent and accommodation control,cooperative societies and land revenue. Beforeapplying the principles enunciated with reference toanother enactment, care should be taken to find outwhether the provisions of the Act to which suchprinciples are sought to be applied, are similar tothe provisions of the Act with reference to which theprinciples were evolved. Failure to do so has led toa wrong interpretation of Section 70 of the KCS Act,in Veerashaiva Coop. Bank (supra) and Karnataka SugarWorkers Federation (supra).Para 20:R.C. Tiwari (supra) related to the Madhya Pradesh,where the ID Act itself was inapplicable (except tothe extent indicated in the M.P. Industrial RelationsAct, 1960). In that case, an employee of acooperative society who had been dismissed from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service for misconduct, raised a dispute under theMadhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. TheDeputy Registrar concerned held that the dismissalwas proper and rejected the reference. Thereafter theemployee sought a reference under Section 10(1) ofthe ID Act. The Labour Court held that the domesticinquiry was vitiated and set aside the order ofdismissal. The said order was challenged by theemployer society before the Madhya Pradesh HighCourt. The High Court held that in view of theprovisions of Section 55 of the Madhya PradeshCooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Labour Court hadno jurisdiction and therefore the reference to theLabour Court was bad. It also held that the findingsrecorded by the Deputy Registrar, CooperativeSocieties against the employee in the award madeunder Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh CooperativeSocieties Act, would operate as res judicata. ThisCourt upheld the said decision of the High Court anddismissed the special leave petition. The decisionwas rendered with reference to the special provisionsof the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and theM.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Having regard toSection 110 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, theprovisions of the Central Act — the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (except Chapters V-A, V-B and V-Crelating to lay-off and retrenchment, specialprovisions relating to lay-off, retrenchment andclosure in certain establishments and unfair labourpractices), did not apply to any industry to whichthe said M.P. Industrial Relations Act applied. TheID Act did not apply in the State of Madhya Pradeshto adjudication of disputes between the employer andemployees, not because of any bar in the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act, but because of the Statehaving made a law relating to industrial disputes,namely, the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 whichhad received the assent of the President. The M.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, vide Section 55,specifically provided that where a dispute includinga dispute relating to terms of employment, workingconditions and disciplinary action by a societyarises between a society and its employees, theRegistrar or any officer appointed by him shalldecide the dispute and his decision shall be bindingon the society and its employees; and Section 93 ofthe M.P. Cooperative Societies Act provided thatnothing contained in the M.P. Industrial RelationsAct, 1960 shall apply to a society registered under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that Act (the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act). It isin these circumstances that in R.C. Tiwari4 thisCourt held that the ID Act did not apply to a disputebetween a society and its employees in regard to anydisciplinary action. In that case, the question ofany repugnancy between a State Act (the MadhyaPradesh State Cooperative Societies Act) and theCentral Act (the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) didnot arise. The State of Karnataka does not have aState Act governing industrial disputes as in MadhyaPradesh and therefore, the question of the KarnatakaCooperative Societies Act excluding the applicabilityof a State law relating to industrial disputes didnot arise. The decision in R.C. Tiwari (supra) wasnot, therefore, relevant or applicable. The DivisionBench of the Karnataka High Court committed an errorin following the decision in R.C. Tiwari (supra) tohold that the jurisdiction of Labour Court under theID Act was barred, in view of Section 70 as amendedby the Amendment Act 19 of 1976, even prior to theamendment of Sections 70(1) and (2) by Act 2 of 2000.Para 21:The decision of this Court in Sagarmal (supra) alsorelated to Madhya Pradesh. In that case, theappellant was an employee of a cooperative bank andhe was removed from service after a disciplinaryinquiry. The employee challenged his removal byseeking a reference to the Labour Court under Section10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A referencewas made and the Labour Court granted him relief ofreinstatement with back wages. The employer bankchallenged the award in a writ petition and the HighCourt quashed the award on the ground that it was anullity, having been made in an incompetentreference. While affirming the decision of the HighCourt, this Court held that the provisions of the IDAct, did not apply to the respondent cooperativebank, and the only question was about theavailability of remedy either under the MadhyaPradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 or under theMadhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. ThisCourt observed that if such a question had arisen,Section 93 of the Madhya Pradesh CooperativeSocieties Act would have come into effect, but nooccasion arose for consideration of such a questioninasmuch as the employee did not resort to the remedyeither under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative SocietiesAct, 1960 or under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Relations Act, 1960, but chose the remedy of areference under Section 10 of the ID Act, which wasinapplicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh. ThisCourt reiterated that as the only question before theHigh Court was the competence of a reference underSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, andnot the availability of the remedy under the MadhyaPradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 or the MadhyaPradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, the viewtaken by the High Court that the reference underSection 10 of the ID Act was incompetent, and theaward made therein a nullity, did not suffer from anyinfirmity. In short, Section 10 of the ID Act washeld inapplicable not because the Madhya PradeshCooperative Societies Act, 1960 prevailed over theprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 butbecause in Madhya Pradesh, the provisions of the IDAct, 1947 (except certain specified provisionsrelating to lay-off, etc.) did not apply in view ofthe provisions of the Madhya Pradesh IndustrialRelations Act, 1960. Therefore, the decision inSagarmal (supra) was also of no assistance.Therefore, the decision in Veerashaiva Coop. Bank waserroneous."Para 24:"The resultant position can be summarised thus:(a) Even though Clause (d) was added in Section70(2) with effect from 20-1-1976, Section 70(1) didnot exclude or take away the jurisdiction of theLabour Courts and Industrial Tribunals under the IDAct to decide an industrial dispute between thesociety and its employees. Consequently, even afterinsertion of Clause (d) in Section 70(2) with effectfrom 20-1-1976, the Labour Courts and IndustrialTribunals under the ID Act, continued to havejurisdiction to decide disputes between societies andtheir employees.(b) The jurisdiction of Labour Courts andIndustrial Tribunals to decide the disputes betweencooperative societies and their employees was takenaway only when sub-section (1) and sub-section (2)(d)of Section 70 were amended by Act 2 of 2000 and theamendment received the assent of the President on 18-3-2000 and was brought into effect on 20-6-2000. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (c) The jurisdiction to decide any dispute ofthe nature mentioned in Section 70(2)(d) of the KCSAct, if it answered the definition of industrialdispute, vested thus:(i) exclusively with Labour Courts andIndustrial Tribunals till 20-1-1976;(ii) concurrently with Labour Courts/IndustrialTribunals under the ID Act and with Registrar underSection 70 of the KCS Act between 20-1-1976 and 20-6-2000; and(iii) exclusively with the Registrar underSection 70 of the KCS Act with effect from 20-6-2000."24.In the light of the above legal journey through variousdecisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court, thefollowing propositions will emerge:-(a)Section 90 of the 1983 Act providing for settlement ofdisputes will not include a dispute between a servant of aCo-operative Society and its Management. Therefore, nodispute can be referred to the Registrar or his nomineeunder Section 90 and consequently, no appeal will lie tothe Tribunal under Section 152. (b)Section 153 of 1983 Act is a departure from Section 97 ofthe 1961 Act and it is wider in nature. Power has beenspecifically conferred on the revisional authority underSection 153 to call for and examine the record of anyproceeding under the Act or the Rules or the bye-laws ofany officer subordinate to the Registrar or of the Boardof Director or any officer of a registered society or ofthe competent authority constituted under Section 75(3) ofthe 1983 Act. Therefore, the employees of a Co-operativeSociety can approach the Registrar or any competentauthority under Section 153 to revise any order passed bythe Co-operative Society relating to disciplinary actiontaken against him or denial of promotion or wrong fixationof seniority, etc.(c)There is no implied ouster of the jurisdiction of thepower of the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal to dealwith similar matters if disputes are raised before them byworkmen or employees covered by those provisions. Bothremedies are available. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (d)The decision in Somasundaram v. Liyakat Ali [1997 (1)CTC 4 = 1998 (2) LLJ 719] may not be a good law. Theemployees therein filed a Civil Suit regarding promotionissue. As remedy for the aggrieved parties in that caseare available either under Section 153 or by an industrialdispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, they could not have gone before the Civil Court.Therefore, the bar under Section 156 of the Co-operativeSocieties Act as well as the implied ouster ofjurisdiction of the Civil Court by the provisions of theI.D. Act will directly apply and the suit is barred.(e)The decision of P. Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) in K.Radhakrishnan v. Additional Registrar [2000 (ii) CTC147] upholding the right of revision under Section 153has laid the correct position of law. Likewise, thejudgment of P.Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) in TheManagement of Madras Atomic Power Project Employees'Consumers (Co-operative Stores Limited, Kalpakkam rep. byits Special Officer v. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour(Appeal) Madras – 6 and 2 others [2000 (III) CTC 738 =2000 (2) LLJ 1451] holding that Section 90 of the 1983 Actis not available for employees of Co-operative Societiesagainst the orders of termination has been correctlydecided.25.In the light of the above, 25.1. W.P. No. 14680 of 1996 filed by the RamanathapuramDistrict Central Co-operative Bank challenging the preliminary orderdated 24.5.1996 will stand dismissed. Since the matter is already12 years old, the first respondent therein is directed to dispose ofthe revision petition within a period of twelve weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice to therespective parties in accordance with law. 25.2. All other writ petitions, viz., W.P. Nos. 17802 of 1994,10161 of 1995, 6219, 6220, 20964 and 21003 of 2000 and 19704 of2001, will stand allowed and the orders passed by the DeputyRegistrar under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative SocietiesAct will stand set aside as they were made without jurisdiction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25.3. However, there will be no order as to costs. All theconnected Miscellaneous Petitions will stand dismissed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.griTo1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. SocietiesCoimbatore2. The Special Officer Coimbatore City Cooperative Bank, Jail Road, Coimbatore3. The Additional Registrar(Marketing Planning and development) Office of the Registrar Cooperative societies, Madras-104. The Managing Director,Salem District Central Cooperative Bank, Salem5. The Deputy Registrar of CooperativeSocieties,Salem Circle, Salem.3 ccs to Mr.R. Arumugam, Sr. 281582 ccs t Mr.R. Parthiban, SR. Nos.28101, 281021 cc to Mr.R. Radhapandian, SR. 280571 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 281882 ccs to M/s. Muthumani Doraisami, Sr. 27773 W. P. No. 17802 of 1994, etc. batchKSK (CO)kk.km 23/6