Narayana Pai, C.J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition directed against the finding on issue No. 5 in a suit instituted by the respondent against the petitioner-co-operative society has been referred to a Division Bench, because a Bench ruling of this Court in Surathkal Co-op. Town Bank Ltd. v. E. Padmanabhayya. (1967) 2 Mys LJ 503 appears to be in conflict with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in two subsequent decisions in Decean Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd y. Dalichand Jugrai Jain. : 1SCR887 and Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Industrial Tribunal : (1969)IILLJ698SC .
2. The respondent was the Secretary of the Society and had been dismissed, and the suit is in relation to the said dismissal.
3. The defence of the Society was that the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of a Civil Court because it was a dispute falling within the scope of Section 70 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, being a dispute touching either the constitution, management or business of the Co-operative Society between a Society and a past employee of the Society.
4. In the judgment of this Court referred to above, following a decision of the Bombay High Court in G. I. P. Railway Employees Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Bhikhaji Marwanji Karanjia. AIR 1943 Bom 341. it was pointed out that the word 'touching' has much wider connotation than the expression 'directly related' and that speaking broadly, if a reasonable or logical relationship between a matter in question and the business can be pointed out. It will not be wrong to describe the said matter as a matter touching the business.
5. The Supreme Court, while agreeing that the word 'touching' may have a wide import, expressed the view that it was doubtful whether the word 'affects' should also be used in defining the scope of the word 'touching'. It was further pointed out that the word 'business' has, in the context of the section, a limited meaning, viz., that it should be equated with the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society and should not therefore be extended to matters like regulating the conditions of service of its employees.
6. In view of the authoritative deceleration of the law by the Supreme Court, there can be no doubt whatever that the opinion expressed by this Court as well as by the Bombay High Court in the cases referred to above cannot any longer be depended upon to take a different view,
7. The argument of Mr. Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the matter may be related to the word 'management' is also without force, because the sections dealt with by the Supreme Court also contain the same three words 'constitution, management and business' as are found in Section 70 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act.
8. It has therefore to be held that the finding of the trial Court, which is in consonance with the decisions of the Supreme Court which are cited in its order, is not liable to be interfered with,
9. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.