Skip to content

Rambhau Jairam Dhamange and ors. Vs. the President, Vinkar Co-operative Society Ltd., Chanda and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Civil Appln No. 765 of 1964, Spl Civil Appln. No. 161 of 1965 and Sp. Civil Appln No. 443
Reported inAIR1966Bom187; (1965)67BOMLR877; ILR1966Bom616; 1966MhLJ1
ActsMaharashtra Co-operative societies Act, 1960 - Sections 91; Industrial Disputes Act
AppellantRambhau Jairam Dhamange and ors.
RespondentThe President, Vinkar Co-operative Society Ltd., Chanda and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.G. and V.P. Kukday, ;S.W. Dehabe and ;R.W. Adik, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateP.S. Badiye, Adv., ;R.B. Kotwal, Govt. Pleader, ;G.R. Mudholkar, ;P.D. Mudholkar Addl, Govt. Pleaders, ;S.W. Dhabe, ;B.A. Masokhar, ;N.N. Deshpande and ;P.D. Kamerkar, Advs.
maharashtra co-operative societies act (mah. xxiv of 1961), sections 91, 92, 93, 95, 163(1)(b), 146(m), 2(4), 65(2), 71, 75(3), 165(2)(xxxi)(xi) - bombay co-operative societies act (bom. vii of 1925), section 54--industrial disputes act (xiv of 1947), sections 2(j)(s)(k), 18(3), 10--c.p. & berar industrial disputes settlement act (xxiii of 1947), sections 22, 23, 54--dispute between co-operative society and its employee in regard to change in terms of employment or for reinstatement of employee--whether such dispute could be decided by registrar of co-operative societies--'any dispute', meaning of words in section 91(1)--'non obstante clause in section 91(1), effect of--section 91(2) whether enlarges jurisdiction conferred on registrar by section 91(1).;section 91 of the maharashtra.....chainani, c.j.1. the question which has been referred to us for our consideration, as re -drafted by us in consultation with the learned counsel for the parties, is as under:whether s. 91 of the maharashtra co - operative societies act, 1960, operates as a bar to a dispute between a co - operative in regard to a demands or employees in regard to a demand for the a change in the term of employment or for change reinstatement of the employees, whose services had been terminated, being decided under the c.p. and berar industrial disputes settlement act, 1947 or the industrial disputes act 1947?the facts in special civil application no. 765, of 1964 which has given rise to this reference briefly are that the petitioners was employed by the respondent no.1 which is a co - operative society.....

Chainani, C.J.

1. The question which has been referred to us for our consideration, as re -drafted by us in consultation with the learned counsel for the parties, is as under:

Whether S. 91 of the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies act, 1960, operates as a bar to a dispute between a co - operative in regard to a demands or employees in regard to a demand for the a change in the term of employment or for change reinstatement of the employees, whose services had been terminated, being decided under the C.P. and berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 or the Industrial disputes Act 1947?

The facts in special civil Application No. 765, of 1964 which has given rise to this reference briefly are that the petitioners was employed by the respondent No.1 which is a co - operative society ordinarily registered under the Co - operative societies act, 1912. On 14-11-1962 is services were trepanned with effect from 15-12-1962. On 4-6-1963 he made an application of to the Assistant Commissioners of Labor under Sub -S [2] of S. 16 of the C.P and Berar Industrial Disputes settlement act 1947 in which he prayed that an order should be made for his reinstatement and for payment of to him back wages. This application was dismissed. The petitioners filed a recession application before the state Industrial Court under Sub - s [5] of S .16 of the Act. Before the state Industrial court an objections of was raised that neither the Assistant Commissioners of Labor nor the state industrial commissioner application made by the petitioner as under S. 91 of the Maharastra co - operative societies act only the Registrar of co - operative societies or his nominee was competent of to decide the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents No.1 This objections of was upheld b the state industrial court which held that only the Registrar and had jurisdiction of in the matter. The state Industrial court therefore dismissed the application of made by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioners of filed the special civil application of in this court which has given rise to the this reference.

(2) The parties in two other special civil applications - Special Civil Application No.161 of 1965 and special Civil Application No. 443 of 1964 filed in Bombay have been allowed the intervene. The facts of special civil application No. 161 of 1965 are similar to those of special Civil application of No. 765 of 1964. The petitioner in that application was an employee of the respondents of No.3, of which is a Co - operative Society. The petitioners had resigned from this service. Subsequently he made an application under sub - s [2] of S. 16 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes settlement Act, alleging that he had been forced to there sign from service. He prayed that he should be reinstated in service. That application was reject. A revision application to the state rejected Industrial Court also failed on the same ground that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter.

(3)The third Special Civil Application No. 443 of 1964 arises out of a reference of made by the state Government under S. 10[2] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Industrial Tribunal by which a dispute between the petitioner, which is Co - operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies Act, 1960 and its workman represented that the respondent No.1 was referred to the adjudication of the industrial Tribunal. The dispute of the related to the demands made by the workers, for highly pay scales, for additional leave benefit, for contributory provident found. For bonus etc.

(4) In order to determine the question which arises for our consideration, it is necessary to first consider what an 'industrial dispute' means and the nature of relief's which the authority adjudicating such dispute can grant. The term 'industry' is defined in C1 [j] of S. 2 of the Industrial Disputes act as meaning any business, trade, undertaking manufacture or calling of employers, and includes and calling service, employment of handicraft of the industrial occupation of the vocation of workman. 'Workman' is defined in C1 [s] as meaning any person employed in an find sultry. The remaining part of the definition the is not material for our purpose. 'Industrial dispute' is defined in C1 [k] as meaning any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workman, or between workman and workman, which is connected with the employment or non - employment, or the teems of employment or with conditions of the labor, of any person. Any dispute raised by the employees to alter of better of the terms of the employment of is therefore an Industrial dispute. In order to the be an industrial dispute it is not necessary that the demand of must be made or the relief claimed under a contract of employment. An industrial dispute also arises when the employees seeks higher scales of the pay, reduction in hours of work or workload, share in the profits of the concern by the way of bonus, or other changes in the items terms of their employment of the condition of service and the employment of are not agreed to by the employment or condition or service and these demands are not agreed to the by employer. The definition of 'industrial dispute' in the C.P. and Berar industrial Disputes settlement of act is wider, but the essential feathers of on the 'industrial Dispute' is that it is not restricted to a claim under the contract or agreement of the employment.

(5) It is well settled that Industrial Tribunal or authority adjudicating an industrial dispute, who may conveniently be referred as an industrial arbitrator, is unlike a civil Court not fettered byte agreement between the parties. He is required to decide the matter not according to the agreement of contract between in the parties but according to contract what, having regard to all circumstances of reconsider to be judge and fair. In order that the workers get a proper wage that the they victimized or unfairly treated and that their terms of employment generally are such as arbitrator has the power and the authority is radically modify or alter the agreed terms of the employment and to impose new contract for the parties. No authority is necessary in support of these proposition, but I will refer to one of the them the decision, of the supreme court. In Rohtas Industrial Ltd v. Brijnandan Pandey : (1956)IILLJ444SC is was observed.

'There is undoubtedly a distinction between commercial and industrial arbitration. As has been pointed out by Ludwing Teller [Labour Disputes and Collective Bargaining Vol. 1 page 536]

'Industrial arbitration may involve the extension of an existing agreement, or the making of new one, or in general the creations of new obligates or modifications of old ones while commercial arbitration generally concerns of itself with interpretation of existing obligations, and disputes of relating of existing agreements.'

A court of law proceeds on the footing that no power exists in the court to make contract for people and the parties must make their own contract. The court reach make their limit of power than they enforce contracts which the parties have made. An Industrial Tribunal is not so fettered and may create new obligations or modify contracts in the interest of industrial peace of the protect legitimate tread union activities and to prevent unfair practices or victimization.'

An Industrial Tribunal has also jurisdiction or dismissed discharged employee, see Waster India Automobile association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay . In view of S. 21[b] of the specific Relief act, no such relied can be granted by a civil court or a private arbitrator, see Dr. S. Dutt v. University of Delhi : [1959]1SCR1236

(6) I will now refer to relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies Act, 1960. This Act replaced the earlier Bombay Co - Operative Societies Act, 1925, which was previously in force. Sub - section [1] of S. 54 of that Act, in so far it is material was in the following terms:

'54 (1) (a) If any dispute touching the constitution or business of society arises between members or past members of the society or person claiming through a member of past member o between members or past members or persons so claiming and any officer, agent or servant of the society post or present or between the society or its committee, and any officers, agent member or servant of the society past or present, it shall be referred to this Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee.


Provided that if the question at issue between a society and a claimant, or between a society different claimants in one involving complicated questions of law and fact, the Registrar may if he thinks fit, suspect proceedings, in the matter until the question, has been tried by a regular suit institute by one of the parties or by the society. It no such suit is instituted with six months of the Registrar's order suspending proceedings of the Registrar shall take action as laid down in the paragraph 1 of his section.'

Sub = section (1) of S. 91 of the Maharashtra Co - Operative Societies act, 1960 is so far as the it is relevant provides that the notwithstanding anything's contained in any others law for the timbering in force any dispute touching the ................... management or business of a society shall be referred by any dispute of parties to the dispute................... to the Registrar, if both the parties thereof are on one or the other of the parties there of persons specified in Cls (a) to (e) of this sub -section. The material change from the of S. 54 which has been ,made in this sub - section, in the addition of the non obstinate clauses 'Notwithstanding anything's contained in any other law of the for the time being in force.' Subsection(2) of the S. 91 of states that when any question arises of whether for the purposes of sub -section (1), any matter referred to for decision of dispute or not, the question shall be considered by the Registrar, whose decision shall be final. The Registrar is therefore, required to decide as preliminary issue the question whether the dispute is of the kind and between the parties mentioned in sub - s [1]. Unless he finds that the dispute of falls with in the sub - section [1] of S. 91, the all will have no jurisdiction to decide it. This sub - section also gives finality to the decision of the Registrar on this preliminary issue. Sub - section [3] of S. 91 state that save as otherwise provided under sub - s [3] of S. 93, on court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other [receding in respect of any dispute referred to in sub section [1], clause, [b] in sub -s. [1] of S. 163 proves that save as the expressly provided in this Act no civil or Revenue court shall be have any jurisdiction in respect of any dispute of required to be referred to the Registrar, or his nominee, to board of nominees, for decision. This provision of has the jurisdiction of any civil or Revenue of court whereas sub - s [3] of S. 91 outset the jurisdiction of any court.

(7) sub - section [1] of S. 92 prescribes period of limitation of for matter of the kind mentioned in Cls [a] to [d] which are referred to the Registrar. Sub - section [2] of this section state that the period of limitation in the case of any other dispute of except the those mentioned in sub - s [1], which are required to the referred to the Registrar shall be regulated by the provisions of the Indian Limitation of Act, as if the dispute of were a suit and the Registrar Civil court. This sub - section therefore makes the Registrar, is a civil court for the purpose of determining the period of limitation.

(8) Sub -section [1] of S. 93 provides that if the Registrar is satisfied that any matter referred to him or brought to his notice, it a dispute within the meaning of S. 91 the Registrar shall subjects of the rules decide the dispute himself, or from if for disposal to a nominee or about of nominees, appointed by the Registrar. Sub - section [3] of s. 93 provides that notwithstanding anything's contained in S. 91 the Registrar may if the thinks fit, suspend proceedings in regard to any dispute if the question at issue between a society and a claimant or the between different claimants of is one involving complicated questions of flaw and facts until the questions has been tried by the regular suit instated by one the parties or by the society and that if thane such suit is not instituted within two months from the Registrar's order spending proceedings the Registrar shall take action as is provided in Sub -s [1]. This sub - section is substantially in the same terms as the proviso to sub - s [1] of S. 54 of the Act of 1925. If the Registrar finds that the matters referred to the him raises complicated question of law and fact he may ask the questions parties to get the dispute resolved in the Civil court. Section 96 states that when a dispute is referred to arbitrator the Regular or his nominee, or board of nominee any after the giving reasonable opportunity to the parties of to be heard, make inward on the dispute.

(9) The words 'Touching the business of the a society' are very to wide in the include any matter which relates to concerns, or affects the business of the society are see Farkhundali Nannhay v. V. B. Potdar : AIR1962Bom162 A dispute in which the employees of the a Co - operative society of demeans of change in the their conditions of service as ask for reinstatement the employees whose services have been terminated, therefore touches the business of the society. If would therefore in the absences of anything's more fall within the sub - section (1) of S. 91. It has been contended behalf workers that the Registrar or his nominees functions like a civil courts that the like between the parties that the cannot travel outside the contract and that an industrial dispute is therefore not with in his jurisdiction of in support of this argument, the decision of this court in Majoor Sahakari Bank v. N.M. Majumdar : (1955)IILLJ755Bom has been cited. In that case, workman, who was employed as a watchman by a co-operative societies regard under the Co - operatives societies Act, 1925, and doing banking business had been discharges from service. He then made an applications of to the labor court seeking reinstatement and compensation. A preliminary objection was raised that the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations on Act 1947, did not apply and that the dispute act 1947 only be decided by the Registrar under S. 54 of the Co - Operatives societies Act, 1925 This contention was negative At p. 1099, [of Bombay LR] [a p. 37 of AIR] Chagla C.J. observed.

' It is further pointed out that S. 54 provides for compulsory arbitration of when there is a dispute between associate and is employee, ....................Mr. Rene has very rights by pointed out that the disputes of contemplated by S. 54 are disputes of the been decided by the civil court but of the provisions with regard to compulsory arbitration provided in the S. 54 Mr.Rane has also rightly pointed out that the present dispute between respondents No.2 and the petitioners could not have been the subject - matter of the references to arbitration of under S. 54 of Respondents No.2 is not claiming to asset any civil rights against the petitioners. What he is claiming is certain rights which are now conferred to upon the workman and employees as result of principles of social employees as result principles of society justice which are no almost university acknowledged at the word over. There is no right of re - instatement under civil law which can be enforced by an employee against his employer. No contract by the employee against enforced by a civil law court does civil court determine Whitehorse the wages paid to the court employees of are proper wages was or not civil courts are bounds of down by that the law of contract and it is under the law of the between a master and his servants.'

(10) In special Civil Application No. 344 of 1959, dated 13-9-1960 [Bom] another, Division Bench of this court has held than a claim society did not come within the ambit of section 54. Tarkunde, j in this judgment of observed.

'The question is whether an industrial dispute of which arises of from a demand made by the employees outside the terms of the contract of their employee and not based upon any existing statutory, obligation of or legal liability of the employer could be regard as dispute touching the business of the society as mentioned in S. 54. We are of the view that the S. 54 does not comprise which such dispute normally the Registrar his nominee when dispute is referred to him under S. 54, decided that dispute according to the civil rights of the parties. The claim for bonus made by the employees of the society of it not a claim arising out of any contract of between themselves by and the society nor is there any statutory who an obligations has been imposed on an employer to pay a particular bonus. Under the ordinary law a claim like the one made of by the Union being contrary to the terms of the contract between the parties, and not being founded on any statute, would have to be rejected byte court or Arbitrator, dealing wish civil disputes. Tribunals set up under the Industrial Disputes, Act however are entitled and often required to go beyond are contractual often required to go and statutory rights of the parties for the purpose of the settlement of Industrial disputes and the maintenance of industrial peace.

(11) Counsel for the Co - operative Societies have contended that this position has been substantially altered by the no obstinate clauses in Section 91. It has been argued that this change was the made deliberately, that if was intended to get round the decision in : (1955)IILLJ755Bom and others simile decisions of that the application of the Industrial Disputes Act is therefore excluded, that there is in o justification for limiting the words 'any dispute' in sub - section (1) of S. 91 and that the Registrar is also competent to adjudicate upon the industrial disputes.

(12) There has been some discussion in regard to the meaning of the words 'law' inn the non obstinate clause. It has been urged that the words 'law' would include every other law including law affecting substantive rights of parties. There is no force in this argument. The non obstinate of clause must be read in its context. Sub - section (1) of section 91 in the effect provides that the disputes mentioned there in shall be tried by the Registrar. It there provides for the forum of trial. The non obstinate clauses excluded the operations of the other law, which confer jurisdiction of some others law, court authority or Tribunal to try such disputes. It there is any other law, which lay down that a matte which under section 91 of the Registrar has jurisdiction of decide, may be tried by the some other court authority of is Tribunal then the appellation of that law is excluded by the non obstinate clause. But this clauses does not alters or modify the substantive rights of the parties, nor does it confer any additional powers on the Registrar.

(13) It has been held in several case the jurisdiction conferred by S. 54 of the Act of 1925 was exclusive and that the civil courts could not deal wit the any matter which under S. 54 of had to the referred to the Registrar. What was therefore implicit in S. 54 has now been expressly stated in the non obstinate of clauses. It may also be in pointed out the that decision in the majoor sahakari Bank's case : (1955)IILLJ755Bom , was not based on the ground that section 54 did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Registrar in the matter referred to therein. The ratio of the and other similar decision is that the Registrar cannot determine an industrial dispute, because like a civil court he is bound by the contract if employment's and cannot grant any relief outside the contract. These decisions therefore of are not affected or got rid of the by the addition of the non obstinate clause which only excludes the application of other laws in the regard to the forum of trial.

(14) The learned Government plead has referred to three propositions laid down by willes J in Wolverhampton New Water works, Co v. Hawkesford. [1859] 6 CB [N.S] 336 which has been approved by the Supreme court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning officer, Namakkal Constituency : [1952]1SCR218

'There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. One is where there was liability existing at common law and that liability of affirmed by the a statute which gives a special and peculiar from the remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law there unless the statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication, exclude the common law remedy, the party suing has his election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second class of cases of is where the statute contains words to sue case merely but the party can only proceed by action common law. But there is a third class., viz., where a liberty not existing at common-law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to the part to case the second class. The from give by the statute must be adopted and adhered to.'

The learned Government plead has contended that the present case falls under the third category of the cases mentioned by willes J, in which a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives special and particulars remedy for enforcing it. He has urged that the Industrial dispute act have created new rights in favor of workers and also provides machinery of the adjurisdiction of those rights. only the Tribunal constituted under these Act can, therefore the decide the dispute in read to those rights. If we had come to the conclusion that the Registrar can try industrial disputes and grant appropriate relief, we would have found it difficult to accept this argument in view of the obstinate clause, the words 'law' in which would also include the Industrial dispute act.

(15) It has been argued that as dispute of between Co - operative society and its employees touches the business of the society and therefore the falls under section 91(1) every such dispute must first be referred to the Registrar of section decision obtained under sub - section (2) of section 91 and that it is only if Registrar decides that it is not a dispute within section 91, that only other Tribunal will have jurisdiction to decide it. Sub - section (2) of section 91 however, only empowers the Registrar to determine a jurisdictional issue. It does not enlarge of the jurisdictional issue . it does not enlarge ht jurisdiction conferred on the Registrar by sub -section [1]. If therefore the other provisions of the act indicate of that some industrial disputes of the don't come within the ambit of sub -section (1) or sub - section (2). In any case this provisions does not furnish any assistants in deciding arising out of the terms of their employment of can be triad by the Registrar.

(16) An indication of the nature of disputes which the Registrar can determine is furnished by sub - section (3) of S. 93 of the act. This sub - section empowers than Registrar to stay the proceedings before him and to ask the parties to approach civil court be a regular suit for deciding the dispute between them. A party can be asked to go to a civil court only dispute is one which cane decided by civil court. The matter referred to the Registrar must therefore be necessary such in which contained in section 91. It is therefore proven clear that the dispute of covered by the section 91 must be one which is capable by the being tried by the civil court. This conclusion also finds support in the clauses (b) of the sub-section (1) of the section 163 which ousts the jurisdiction of which required to be referred of any dispute which is required to the referred to the dispute which the relied is claimed outside the terms the Registrar cannot also try such a dispute.

(17)The matter may be looked at from another point of view that is by considering the nature of the relied which the Registrar can grant in a matter referred to hi. There is no provision in the Co - operatives of societies Act investing the Registrar with the powers to decide the matter otherwise than in accordance's with the ordinary than in occurrences with the ordinary of civil rights if the parties. Under sub - section (1) of the section 93, the Registrar is given the power to decide a dispute himself order it to a nominee or a board of nominees if he find at the matter referred to him is a dispute within the meaning of section 91. Section 96 empowers of the Registrar to make an award. Clause [m] is section 146 state that is shall be an offenses if any officers or a member of the society of willfully fails to comply with any of decision of ward or order passed under section 93. It has therefore been contended that the power conferred on the Registrar to decide the dispute of the and to make an award necessarily includes of the power to grant may require. In the absence of any provisions Registrar the Registrar cannot however deicing the matter referred to him except according to the ordinary law application to the matter. To any dispute of between a society and its the ordinary law of master and servant which does not recognize a rights if an employees to continue of in service if his employer of does not want hi. Similarly the Registrar cannot go out side the terms of the employment and change of alter the conditions of service. He can enforce the contract between the parties but he cannot impose any new obligations. As he cannot grant such a relief, it follow that he cannot try and industrial dispute of in which demands not covered by the contract of employment, are made.

(18) Our attention has been invited to the some other provisions of the co - operative societies act to which I will now refer clauses (4) in section 2 contains a definitions of the words 'Bonus' sub section (2) of the section 65 states that the associate may appropriate of its profits to the payment of bonus on the basis of support received from members and persons who are not members and business. Section 71 authorizes associate to establish for its employees a provident fund. Sub -section [3] of section 75 state that there of shall be attached to every balance sheet laid before the society in the general sheet laid bear the general meting a report of the committee with respect to the amount., if any which it recommends shall be paid by way of the bonus. Clauses [xxxi] in sub - section [2] of the section 165 state that the state Government may make unless prescribing the conditions under which profits may be distributed as bonus among the members of non - members of the society. Clause [XL] authorizes the making of the rules prescribing the qualifications for the employees of the society and the conditions of service subject to which persons may b employed by societies. These provisions only show that the society may establish a provident found or pay bonus to its employees and that rules may be made in the regard to their conditions of service. They have no bearing on the question of whether an industrial dispute can be decided by Registrar. The preamble, of this act to which a reference was made during can be deeded by the Registrar. The preamble of the act to which a reference was made during the court of the argument was isles not of any assistance of deciding this question.

(19) In : AIR1962Bom162 , this court was inclined to take the view that a claim for retrenchment of compensation can be entertained by the Registrar. A Contract between an employer and his employees can be modified by law. The industrial Disputes act 1947, imposes a liability on an employer to pay retrenchment compensation to his employees. This is therefore one of the terms inserted b law in the contract of employment. A claim for retrenchment of compensation can therefore also said to a claim under the contract of employment., and can consequently be tried by the Registrar. This authority cannot, therefore be relied upon in supper of the argument that the Registrar can decide every industrial dispute.

(20) Sub - section (3) of section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act prescribes that the award of the Labor court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable, shall being on.

(A) all parties to the industrial disputes:

(B) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute unless the Board, arbitrator Labor court Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case maybe records the opinion, that they were so summoned without proper causes:

(c) Where a party referred to in clauses [a] or clause [b] is composed of workman all person who were employed, in the establishment or part of the establishment of as the case may be to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.

Under clauses [d] an award made under this act, therefore, but binds not only the parties to the dispute but all workman, employed in the establishment. Similar provisions of are contained in section 22, 23 and 54 and of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Dispute settlement act. Other Industrial Disputes acts also contained similar provision. There is no similar provision if the co - operative societies act. These provisions have been made evidently in order to prevent frequent industrial disputes, to encourage collective bargaining and to secure industrial peace. As there is no similar provision in the Co - operative Societies act, it is unlikely that the Legislature intended that the industrial disputes should be trial by the Registrar.

(21) Under section 10 of the Industrial disputes act Government of may refer an industrial dispute an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Such a reference of may be made in the order to secure industrial may be made peace even when the contesting parties ware unwilling to apply for such reference. Under section 91 of the co - operative societies act, the Register however gets jurisdiction if he is approached byte apart to the dispute. A difficult may, therefore arise if after government have made a reference of one the parties applies to the Registrar under section 91. This difficulty will be eliminated in the law which we are include to take.

(22) The Punjab and kerala High Courts have taken the same view. In Jullundur T.C. Society v. Punjab state it was held that an industrial dispute of between co-operative society registered under the Punjab co - operative societies act and it workman can be referred to an Industrial Tribunal set up under the Industrial disputes Act section 60(1) of the Punjab Co - operative Societies act was substantially in the same terms as section 54 (1) of the Bombay Act of 1925. It contained a proviso almost in the same terms of sub - section (3) of the section 3 of the present Maharashtra Co - operative societies Act. At page 35, the learned judges observed that the dispute contemplated by the Section 50 were not intended by the Legislature to cover all kinds of disputes and this provisions was not mental to be all this embracing as was contended by the learned counsel. It was further observed that a reading of the sub - section (1) of the section 50 clearly showed that though the words 'Touching the constipation or business of the Society' were unqualified and extremely wide and comprehensive, still the Legislature did not intent to the include in the this expression 'industrial disputes' for the adjudication of the which the parliament had enacted the Industrial Disputes act. The learned judges then referred to the proviso and observed.

'Indeed this proviso supplied a key to the intention of Legislature and it almost conclusively of suggests that is only such disputes of as are capable of being tried by a regular suit which was covered by the provisions of section 50.

It has not bee suggested by the learned counsel for petitioner [and it could not be suggested] that an industrial disputes defined in the Industrial Disputes act is capable of being tiredly a regular suit.'

In Kerala state Handloom Weaver's Co - operative Society v. State of Kerala, [1954] 1 Lab LJ 559 [Ker] the Kerala High court has held that the provisions of section 60 (1) of the Travancore - Cochin Co- operative societies act, 1951, did not preclude references to adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial disputes act of the Industrial disputes between a co - operatives society and its workman. At page 561 was observed.

'The question in cases like this is not whether the dispute of referred for adjudication of touches the business really is whether that dispute of be with in the Category of the disputes covered by section 60 (1) of the Travancore - Cochin Co-operative XIII of the Travancore - Cochin Co - operative societies act 1951 - the chapter in which section 60 (1) of the occurs - is not to resolve which section 60 (1) of occurs - is not to resolve all controversies touching the business to co - operatives societies under the provisions of the chapter but resolve only such controversies as can be resolved in an ordinary court flaw. In other words the arbitration, provides by chapter XIII is an alternative to the normal processes the ordinary courts and not to the extraordinary process of the adjudication under the industrial disputes act 1947 which the has been designee to deal with controversies which by the very nature are outside the purview of ordinary litigation.'

The position therefore, is that the dispute of referred to the Registrar under sub - section (1) of the section 91 must be such as a civil court of the Registrar cannot grant an relied outside the contract of employment. He connote, therefore try any matter in which a demand is made for a change in the conditions of service of the reinstatement of the an employee whose services had been terminated. By and large the co - operatives societies act and the Industrial disputes act provides for the settlement of different of classes of disputes. Even though therefore the words 'any dispute' in sub section (1) of the Section 91 are very wide, they will have to be given a limited meaning, fro the reasons which I have given above. These words mean any disputes which the Registrar is competent of try and decide.

(23) Our reply to the question referred to the Full Bench will therefore be in the negative. The matters may now the be in the placed before a division bench for further orders.

(24) Reference answered in the Negative.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //