Cooperative Cane Union v. Liladhar

A B c D E F G 558 \ U.P. CO-OPERATIVE CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. _v._ & ANOTHER + LILADHAR & OTHERS _August_ 27, 1980. [P. N. SHINGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] The respondent joined service in Cane Development Department of the U.P. State Government in 1949 and later on transferred to District Co-operative Sugarcane Development Society Ltd., a federating unit of the U.P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation Ltd. He was prosecuted and convicted for alleged embeztiement of funds, but was acquitted by the High Court in appeal. Later as a result ·of departmental disciplinary proceedings, his services were tem1inated. Respondent, therefore, filed a Civil Suit in 1964 which was decreed on May 24, 1967 rejecting the appellant's plea of bar of jurisdiction by the Civil Court under Rule 115 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936, made under section 43 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. The First Appellate Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that the dispute was one "touching the -..._ business of the Co-operative Society" and its employee and hence the Civil _r_ Court is barred from entertaining the suit. However, in the second appeal to it, the High Court reversed the First Appellate Court's order holding that as the respondent is governed by lJ.P. Sugarcane (Regulation _o{_ Suoplies and Pur-, ..,. chases) Act, 1953, it being both a Co-operative Society and :i. Cane Growers' _;(_ Co-operative Society and in case of an officer or servant of such Cane Growers' Co-operative Society any dispute between its officers and servants and such society would be governed by Rules 54 and _55_ framed under the 1953 Act which provide for a complete machinery for resolution of disputes and Rule 108 does not encompass dispute arising out of a disciplinary proceeding between such society and its officers and servants and therefore, in the absence of such provision for compulsory arbitration of such dispute, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court _Jurisdiction_ _of_ _the Civil_ _Court-Dispute_ _arising_ _out_ _of_ _a disciplinary pro-_ ~ _ceeding resulting in dismissal_ _of_ _an employee_ _of_ _a Co-operative Cane Growers"_ _Society and the society, whether a dispute "touching the business_ _of_ _the society"_ _within the meaning_ _of_ _Rule_ 115 _of_ _the Co-operative Societies_ _R1iles_ _1936-Co;_ _operative Societies Act,_ 1912, _section 2(d),_ 43, _Co-operative Societies Rules,_ 1936, _Rules_ 115 _and_ 134 _and_ _U.P._ _Sugarcane (Regulation_ _of_ _Supplies and Purchases)_ _Act,_ 1953, _Sections_ 28 (211), _read with_ _U._ _P._ _Sugarcane (Regulation_ _of_ _S•;pplies_ _and Purchases) Rules,_ 1954, Rule~ 54, 55 _and_ 108, _scope of._ HELD: (1) On a conspectus of the High Court's decision and the definition of the expression "officer" both expansive definition and its etymological sense, first respondent a Supervisor working as a Godown Ke~per cou!d not H be styled as an officer of the Co-operative Society, he not being either Chairman. Secretary, Treasurer, or a member of the Committee or such other person shown to have been empowered under the rules or the bye-laws to give directions in regard to the business .of the society. And the legislature Dever ir"tended 'COOPERATIVE CANE UNION _;v._ LILi\DHAR 559 ' ,to include every employee or servant of the society within, the expression ·"officer". Neither any rule made under section 43(g) of the 1912 Act refers the respondent as an officer. [567 D, 565 G, 566 F] _Co-operative Central Bank_ v. _Trimbak Narayan Shinganwadikar,_ AIR 1945 Nagpur 183; _Manjeri_ S. _Krishna_ _Ayyar_ v. _Secretary, Urban Bank Ltd._ _&_ _Anr._ \AIR 1933 Mad. 682; _Kailash Nath Ha1wai_ v. _Registrar, Co-operative Society,_ _U.P._ _&_ _Ors.,_ AIR 1960 Allahabad 194 and _Abu_ _Baker_ _&_ _Anr._ v. _District Hand-_ _loom_ _Weavers' Co-operative Society, Mau_ _&_ _Anr.,_ AIR 1966 Allahabad 12, 1Ceferred to. (2) Rules 115 to 134 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936 make it clear that if the dispute is one contemplated by Rule 115 and atises between the lJarties therein envisaged it shall have to be resolved by referring the same to the Registrar who will have to get it resolved by arbitration either by himself or by arbitrator or arbitrators appointed by him. Rule 134 provides that a <Iecision of an· arbitrator or arbitrators under the rules, if not appealed as therein provided, shall be final as between the parties to the dispute and not liable to be called in question in any civil or revenue court and shall in all respects be final and conclusive. If. therefore, the 1912 Act confers power to enact rules and the rules so enacted are statutory and if the rules provide for certain types of disputes between certain specific parties to be resolved by arbitration ~nd the decision of the arbitrators is made final and conclusive not correctible by the civil court or unquestionable before the civil court, undoubtedly, the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of zuch specified disputes between specified parties enumerated in Rule 114 would be wholly excluded. [567 F-568 A] (3) In order to attract Rule 115 it must be shown (i) that the dispute jg the one touching the business of the co-operative society; and (ii) that it is between the society and any officer of the society. Both the conditions have to be cumulatively fulfilled before Rule ll5· is attracted which would result ·in ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of dispnte in view of the provision contained in Rule 134. A dispute arisin·g out of a disciplinary proceeding resulting in dismissal of an employee of the society cannot be said to be "a dispute touching the business" of the society within the meaning of the Rule 115. [568 C, 569 G] _Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd._ v. _Mfs._ _Dalichand Jugraj Jain_ & _Ors.,_ [1969] 1 SCR 887; _Co'operative Central Bank Ltd._ & _Orr._ v. _Additional_ _Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh_ & _Ors.,_ [1970] 1 SCR 205 followed. _Kisanlal_ _&_ _Ors._ v. _Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.,_ AIR 1C)46 Nagpur 16 :approved. (4) Section 70 of the lJ.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 also makes it clear that while making a statutory provision for resolution of disputes involving co-operative societies by arbitration by the Registrar, the legislature in term~ excluded a dispute relating to disciplinary action taken by the society against -paid servants of the· society from the purview of the compulsory arbitration. What was implicit in the 1912 Act and the rules framed thereun1er that such a dispute did not "touch the business of the society" and was not within the ·purview of the compulsory arbitration was m~de explicit by section 70 of the 1965 Act (which repeal and replace 1912 Act) by expressly excluding it from the field of compulsory arbitration. (570 C, El A B c D E F G H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS- [1981] 1 S.C.R .. A (5) The approach of the High Court in coming to the conclusion that the civil court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, however, is not correct and totally overlooks and ignores the provisions in 1912 Act and therules enacted thereunder. U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supplies and PUr· chases) Act, 1953 :md the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 operate in an entirely different field and are enacted with different objects in view. 1953 Act neither trenches upon 1912 Act nor supersedes or supplants any provision B of it [572GJ CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appear No. 433 of !977. c D E F G H Appeal by S]:'>ecial Leave from the Judgment and· Order dated 13th August 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. ~ 582/71. ~ _A._ _P._ S. _Chauhan, Guj_ _Raj_ _Singh Chauhan_ and _T._ s: _Arora_ for the Appellant. _Indra Makwana_ for Respondent No. I. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J.-How technical plea of want of jurisdiction has pushed a petty employee from pillar to post since April 1964 and pilloried him with cost presumably unbearable by him, is shockingly demonstrated in this- case. First respondent joined service as a petty employee in Cane Developm\)nt Department of the U.P. State Government somewhere in 1949. On the formation of the U.P. Co-operative Cane Unfon Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the firs't appellant'), services of the first respondent stood transferred and were put at _the_ disposal of the appellant and he was styled as Supervisor. At the relevant time hewas rendering service under the second appellant, District Co-operative Sugarcane Development Society Ltd. (now designated as Zila Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd.,) Budayun, a federating unit of the first appellant and was incharge of manure godown. He was suspended from service with effect from October 18, 1958. A prosecution was launched against him for embezzlement of funds of the second appellant in that he failed to account for 293t bags of amonium sulphate entrusted to him as keeper of manure godown. The case ultimately resulted in the at:quittal of the first respondent by the High Court. Disciplinary pvoceedings were commenced against . him on the same charge and ultimately he was dismissed from service orr April 4,. 1964. First respondent filed a suit being O.S. No. 3'0/64 in the Court of Civil Judge, Budayun, _inter alia,_ for a declaration that the order dismissing him from service was invalid and void and' for a further declaration that he continued to be in service and' for arrears of pay till the date of the suit. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendants (present appellants) number of corrtentions were raised but ## TClOPERATIVE CANE UNION _v._ LILAQHAR _(Desai,_ _J.)_ 561 <Jnly one may be noticed for the present appeal. The contention was that the dispute involved 'in the suit was between an employee of a .Co-operative Cane-Growers' society and the Society and, therefore, ·civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but the plaintiff must approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for reference of dispute to arbitration. The trial Court decreed the suit as per judgment dated May 24, 1967, and granted the de'claration prayed for. The appellants preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1967 to the Court of District Judge, Budayun, who allowed the appeal holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the dispute was between an officer of a Co-operative Society and the Society and the dispute was touching the business of the Society and, therefore, rule 115 of the Co-operative Societies Rules enacted by the U.P. Government in exercise of the rule making power conforred by section 43 of. the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (herein" .after referred to. as 'the 1912 Act') in. its application to the U.P. State would be attracted and the dispute will have to be resolved by arbitration by the Registrar. In accordance with this finding the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. First respondent preferred Second Appeal No. 582/71 _to_ the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The learned single Judge allowed the appeal holding that as the first appellant is governed by U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchases) Act, 1953 ('1953 Act' for short), it being both a Co-operative Society and a Cane Growers' Co-operative Society and in case of an officer or servant of such cane growers' co-opeartive society any dispute between its officers and servants and such society would be governed by rules 54 and 55 framed under 1953 Act which provide a complete machinery for resolution of disputes and rule 108 does not encompass dispute arising out of a disciplinary proceeding between such society and its officers and servants and, therefore, in the absence <Of such provision for compulsory arbitration of such dispute the juris·diction of the Civil Court is not barred. The learned judge accordingly allowed the appeal and remanded the suit, to the first appellate court for decision on medts. Hence this appeal by special leave by original .defendants. The only contention that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit arising out of a disciplinary proceeding held by a Cane Growers' Co·operative Society, governed both by 1912 Act and _W53_ Act against its employee or such dispute falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act to be resolved by arbitration alone. A brief survey of the relevant provisions is neces .sary for the effective disposal,of this contention. A B c D E F G H A 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981'] 1' S.C.R. ' When the suit was fried in the year 1964 the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, as adopted and applied by U.Pi. State was in force in U.P. State. The express~on 'officer' has been defined in s. 2(d) of the Act as under: "2. Definitions-In this Act, unless there. is anything repugB nant in the subject or context, (d) 'officer' includes a chairman, secretary, treasurer, member of committee, or other person empowered under the· rules or the bye-laws to give directions in regard to the busi• ness of the society". / ### + c D E F G H Section 43 conferred power on the Local Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act for the whole or any part of the province, on various topics enumerated in various sub-clauses of the section. Clause (!) of s. 43(2) is relevant. It reads as under: "43. Rules--(1) The State Government may, for the whole or any part of the State and for any registered Society or class of such societies make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may (1) provide that any dispute touching the business of a society between members or past members of the society orpersor.s claiming through a member or past member or between a member or past member or persons so claiming and· the committee or any officer shall be referred to the Registrar for decision, or if he so directs, fo arbitration, and prescribe the mode of appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators and the procedure to be followed in proceedings before the Registrar or such arbitra.tor or arbitrators, and the enforcement of the decisions of the Registrar or the awards of arbitrators''. Armed with this power the U.P~ State enacted what is styled asU.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936, Rule 115 of,the rules reads as under: "115. Any dispute touching the business of a registered society (i) between members or past members of a society or persons claiming through a member or past member, (ii) or betweell' a member or a past member or persons so claiming and the society or its committee or any officer of the society, (iii) between the society or its committee and any officer of the society, and (iv} between two or more registered societies, shair be decided either by the Registrar or by arbitration and shall for that purpose be referred in writing to the Registrar; _>·_ COOP~RATIVE CANE UNION _V._ LILAD~ _(Desai,_ J.) 563 Explanation l.-A dispute shall include claims for amoun.ts due when a demand for payment is made and is either refused or not complied with whether such claims are admitted or not by the opposite party. Explanation 2.-An officer shall include a person appointed for the supervision of the socie,ty. Explanation 3.-The business of a society includes all matters relating to the objects of the society mentioned in the bye-laws as also those relating to the election of office-bearers of a 'society". This rule 115 has to be interpreted in the light of rule 134 which reads as under: "134. A decision of an arbitrator or arbitrators under these rules if not appealed against within the said period and an order of the Registrar shall, as between the parties to the dispute, not be liable to be called in question in any civil or revenue court and shall in all respects be final and conclusive". There is another Act which has a bearing on the topic under discussion styled as U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchases) _Act,_ 1953. It is an Act enacted to regulate the supply and purchase of Sugarcane required for use in sugar factories a11d _gur,_ _rab_ or _khand-_ _sari_ sugar manufacturing units and matters incidental or ancillary thereto. It contemplates setting up of a sugarcane Board and provides for its functions and·duties and the methods of filling up vacancies and regulating its finances. Section 20 confers power on the Governor to impose by a notification a cess not exceeding the al_Il.ount prescribed in the section on the entry of sugarcane into an area specified in such notification for consumption, use or sale there. Section 28 confers power on the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Clause 2(n) in this behalf is relevant. It reads as under: "28. _Power to make_ _rules-(!)_ The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. A B c D E F (2) Without prejudice to the generality of foregoing power, G such rules may provide forX XX xxx xxx (n) the constitution, operation, management, supervision and audit of Canegrowers' Co-operative Societies and Councils and the U.P. Cane Unions Federations and conditions H relating to recognition of such societies or their federation for purposes of this Act and Rules and control of their staff and finances". **A** _**B**_ **D** !F **G** **H** 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] **1 S.C.R.** Armed with this power the U.P. Government enacted the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954. The relevant rules relied upon are rules 54, _55_ and 108. They may be reproduced in extenso: "54. The power to appoint, grant leave of absence to, punish, dismiss, transfer and control Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries and Accountants of Cane-growers Co-operative Societies, whether permanent or temporary, shall be exercised by the Federation subject to the general control of the Cane Commissioner who may rescind or modify any order of the Federation: Provided that the Cane Commissioner may himself exercise any of ~uch powers in case of emergency". "55. Similar powers as stated in Rule 54 may be exercised by the society in respect of the other staff, subject to the regulations made by the Federation and the general control of the Cane Commis'sioner". "108. Any dispute touching the business of (a) a Canegrowers' Co-operative Society between members, or between members and society, or between two registered societies, or between a society and a factory, or between a cane-grower and a factory, (b) a counc.il and a Cane-growers' Co-operative Society, or between a council and a factory or between a council and a canegrower, regarding the payment of contribution to a council by a society or a factory and any other dispute relating to the business of a council. shall be referred to the Cane Commissioner for deci sion. The Cane Commissioner shall decide it himself or refer it to arbitration. No suit shall lie in a Civil or Revenue court in respect of any such dispute". Having had the survey of the relevant provisions of the Acts and the Rules attenti<?n may now be focused on the main and the only controversy in this appeal whether in 1964 when the first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the order dismissing him from service passed by the first appellant is void and for a declaration that he continues to be in service of the first appellant, in the Civil Court at Budayun, that Court had' jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not. First appellant is a federa'tion of Cane-Growers' Cooperative Societies and second appellant is a federating unit or first appellant. At the relevant time first and second appellants were governed by the 1912 Act as well as by the 1953 Act. Each as a Cooperative Society would be governed by the 1912 Act and each as a Cane-growers' Co-operative Society and its federation, for the purpose COOPERATIVE CANE UNION _v._ LILADHAR _(Desai,_ _J.)_ 56 5 -of regulation-of supply and purchase of sugarcane, would be governed A by the 1953 Act. i The question is whether the Civil Court would have jurisdiction 'to entertain a suit in 1964 filed by an employee of a co-operative society against the Co-operative Society for a declaration that the order dismissing him from service is vo.id and for a declaration that he con- B 'tinued to be in service with an alternative prayer for damages ? This contention may be examined first, _inter alia,_ under the provisions of ' 1912 Act and the rules framed thereunder and subsequently whether " 1ht<_ application of the 1953 Act will have any impact on the conclusion. We have extracted above the definition of the expression 'officer' in -1912 Act. Undoubtedly, it is an inclusive definition. If only the -officers enumerated in the definition are comprehended within the ex· pression 'officer', the first respondent is notJ an officer in the sense that he was neither a Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, or a member of the Committee. But the expression 'officer' also embraces such other person empowered under the rules or the· bye-laws to give directions in regard to the business of the society. If _ejusdem ieneris_ canon of ·construction were to be invoked in construing the expression 'officer', the expression 'other persons' must take colour from the words preceding it and accordingly other persons therein envisaged must have some semblance of comparison in respect of power and authority to -give directigns with regard to the business of the society with the enu merated persons such as chairman. secretary, treasurer or member of ihe committee. If every employee of the society were to be an officer it would not be necessary for the legislature to provide that persons other than chairman, secretary, treasurer or member of the committee must ·be such who must have under the rules or the bye-laws the power to give directions in regard to the business of the society. First respon·dent was at the relevant time a supervisor in charge of manure godown drawing a salary of Rs. 150 p.m. Nothing has been pointed out to us by the appellants with reference either to the rules or bye-laws that 'first respondent as supervisor was empowered by any rules or the bye laws to give directions in regarct' to the business of the society. First respondent thus not being either chairman, secretary, treasurer or member of the committee, or such other person shown to have been empowered under the rules or the bye-laws to give directions in regard to the business of the society, unquestionably he was not an officer of the society. We are conscious of the fact that the definition of the expression 'officer' is an inclusive definition. An inclusive definition widens the etymological meaning of the expression or term including therein that which would ordinarily not be comprehended 'therein. Firstly, keeping apart the expansive definition by including c D E F G H 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] I **S.C.R-** **A** **B** **c** **D** **E** **F** **G** **H** Some illustrative cases were relied upon to point out that a godown keeper would not be an officer within the meaning of s. 2(d). In _Co-_ _operative Central Bank_ v. _Trimbak Narayan_ _Shinganwadikar(I),_ an" accountant serving in a co-operative bank was held not to be an officer of the Bank inasmuch as he had no power to give any direction in· regard to the business of the society nor was any rule framed empowering an accountant to give directions. He was held to be a servant of the society falling outside the' definition of the expression 'officer'. In _Manjeri_ S. _Krishna Ayyar_ v. _Secretary,_ _Urban_ _Bank Ltd._ _&_ _Anr.('),_ a1 (1) AIR 1945 Nagpur 183. (2) AIR 1933 Mad. 682. officers who would' otherwise not be comprehended in the expression· 'officer', it may be necessary to ascertain whether first respondent,. giving the expression 'officer' its ordinary etymological meaning, would be comprehended therein. It may be noticed that the legislature never intended to include every employee or servant of the society within the expression 'officer'. There is some element of a right to command· in the word 'officer' with someone whose duty it would be to obey.· If there is an officer ordinarily there will be someone supordinate tO" him, the officer enjoying the power to command and give directions: and subordinate to obey or carry out directions. It may be that even one who is to carry out directions may be an officer in relation to _his_ subordinates. Thus, what is implicit in the expression 'officer' is made explicit by the latter part of definition which provides that such other person would also be an officer who is empowered under the rules and· bye-laws to give directions with regard to the business of th~ society. If it _is_ contended that a particular person is an officer because be is.. empowered to give directions with regard to the business of the society. it would be a question of fact in each case whether a particular person is an officer or a servant or an employee. Unless the appellants are· in a position to point out that first respondent was an officer in the· sense that he had power to command and insist on subordinates to -0bey his directions with regard to business of the society, it would be· difficult to believe that a person designated as supervisor drawing a salary of Rs. 150 and incharge of manure godown would be an officer. In this connection it would be advantageous to refer to s. 43(g) of. the 1912 Act which confers power on the Local Government to make· rules providing for the appointment, suspension and removal of the members of the committee and other officer, and for_ the procedure at meetings of the committee, and for the powers to be exercised and· the duties to be performed by the Committee and other officers. No· rule enacted in exercise of this power was. pointeP, out to us to assert that first respondent would be such officer as contemplated in s. 43(g). _**j**_ COOPERATIVE CANE UNION v. LILADHAR _(Desai,_ _J.)_ 56 7 legal adviser of a co-operative society was held to be an officer of the society within the meaning of s. 2(d). In _Kallash Nath Halwai_ v. _Re-_ _gistrar, Co-operative Society,_ _U.P._ _&_ _Ors.(_ _[1]_ _),_ a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court speaking through Raghubar Dayal, J. (as he #### + then was), held that a manager of a shop run by a Co-operative Society was an officer of the society on the finding that he was in a position to give directions in regard to the business of the shop, a business which was included in the business of the society. The vital contention ion was specifically overruled by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High _tive Society, Mau_ _&_ _Anr.(2),_ in which it was specifically held that rule _)-_ 115 of the Rules framed under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, is not _ultra vires._ On a conspectus of these decisions and the definition of the expression 'officer' both expansive definition and its etymological sense, first respondent a supervisor working as a godown keeper could not be styled as an 'officer' of the Co-operative Society. I The next limb of the argument is whether rule 115 enacted in exercise of power conferred by clause (1) of sub-s. (2) of s. 43 of the 1912 Act would be attracted. Clause (1) of s. 43(2) confers power to make rules providing for resolution of disputes envisaged by the claus!! ,.- between the parties contemplated by the clause by the Registrar by arbitration. In exercise of this power rules 115 and 134 have been enacted. When rules 115 and 134 are read in juxtaposition· it becomes ·eferring the same to the Registrar who will have to get it resolved ed by him. Rule 134 provides that a decision of an arbitrator or arbi A G trators under the rules, if not appealed as therein provided, shall be final as between the parties in dispute and not liable to be called in question in any civil or revenue court and shall in all respects be final and conclusive. If, therefore, the 1912 Act confers power to enact ~ rules and the rules so enacted are statutory and if the rules provide for certain types of disputes between certain specific parties to be resolved by arbitration and the decision of the arbitrators is made final and conclusive not correctible by the civil court or unquestionable . before the civil court, undoubtedly, the jurisdiction of the civil court (!) AIR 1960 All. 194. (2) AIR 1966 AIL 12. **,ii)** **E** **.F** **.H** 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS **[1981]** **1 S.C.R.** in respect of such specified disputes between specified parties enumerated in rule 115 wauld be wholly excluded. The question boils down to this: is a dispute between an em###### + ployee other than _a:n_ officer of a co-operative society and the society arising out of a disciplinary proceeding one which would fall within the ambit of rule 115 ? Clause (iii) of rule 115 was relied upon by the appellant to urge that such a dispute would be one touching the business of a registered society and _it_ would be one between the society~ and its committee and any officer of the society. This contention :-vould stand disposed of in ~iew of our finding that the first respondent is not an officer of the society, **Jn** order to attract rule 115 it must be shown (i) that the dispute is the one touching the business of the co-operative society ; and (ii) that it is between the society and any -.\ officer of the society. Both the conditions have to be cumulatively fulfilled before rule 115 is attracted which would result in ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of dispute in view of the provision contained in rule 134. The first question is, whether a dispute arising out of a disciplinary proceeding resulting in dismissal of an employee of a co-operative society is o'ne touching the business of the society. It is unnecessary to dilate upon this aspect in view of the two decisions of this Court. In _Deccan Merchanl's Co-operative Bank Ltd._ v. _M_ / _s._ _Dalichand_ _Jugraj Jain_ _&_ _Ors.,_ ( [1] ) s, 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies ~ Act, 1968, came up for consideration before this Court. After analysing the section and observing that five kinds of disputes are enumeratedA **in** sub-s. (1) of s. 91, the fifth being disputes touching the business of a society, the Court held as under: "It is clear that the word 'business' in this context does no~ mean affairs of a society because election of office-bearers, conduct .... of general meetings and management of a society would be treated as affairs of a society. Jn this sub-section the word 'business' has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual llfading or comm.ercial or other similar business activity of the society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act and -..,.-· the Rules and its bye-laws". Proceeding from this angle the Court held that the dispute between a tenant of a member of the bank in a building which has subsequently been acquired by the Bank cannot be said to be a dispute touching the business of the Bank. In reaching this conclusion, this (l) [1969] 1 SCR 887. 'coOPERATIVE CANE UNION _v._ LILADHAR _(Desai,_ _J.}_ 569' Court disapproved the view in _Kisanlal_ _&_ _Ors._ v. _Co-operative Central_ _Bank_ _Ltd.(_ _[1]_ _),_ which has relied upon before us. Confirming the view in the _Deccan Merchants Co-operative_ _Bank(2'),_ this Court in _Co-ope-_ _raPive_ _Central Bank Ltd. & Ors._ v. _A.dditronal Industrial Tribunal,_ _Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,(_ _[3]_ _)_ posed a question to itself whether the dispute between the co-operative society and the employee touches the business of the society in the sense explained by this Court in that case. The Court answered the contention as under: "Applying these tests, \ we have no doubt at all that the dispute covered by the first issue referred to the Industrial Tribunal in the present cases could not possibly be referred fo[ decision to the Registrar under s. 61 of the Act. The dispute related to alteratiQU of a number of conditions of service of the workmen which relief could only be granted by an Industrial Tribunal deal ing with an industrial dispute. The Registrar, it is clear from the provisions of the Act, could not possibly have granted the reliefs claimed under this issue because of the limitations placed on his powers in the Act itself. It is true that s. 61 by itself does not contain any clear indication that the Regist:rar cannot entertain a dispute relating to alteration of conditions of service of the· employees of a registered society ; but the meaning given to the expression 'touching the business of the society', in our opinion, makes it very doubtful whether a dispute in respect of altera.tion of conditions of service can be held to be covered by this expres· sion. Since the word 'business' is equated with the actual trading. or commercial or. other similar business activity of the society, and since it has been held that it would be difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the 'purpose of carrying out its objects, such as laying down the conditions of service of its employees, can be s.aid to be a part of its business, it would appear that a dispute relating to conditions of service of the workmen employed by th~ society cannot be held to be a dispute . touching the business of the society". Therefore, on the strength of the aforementianed two decisions it has to be held that a dispute arising out of a disciplinary proceedfog resulting in dismissal of an employee of the society cannot be said to be a dispute touching the business of the society. To some extent this conclusion can be reinforced by reference to the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, which repealed and replaced (I) AIR 1946 Nagpur 16. (2) [1969] I SCR 887. (3) [1970J I SCR 205. A C' F' G H' 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] **1 S.C.R.** the Co-operative Societies A:ct, 1912, in its application to the State of U.P. Section 70 of the 1965 Act provides for settlement of disputes. The relevant portion reads as under: ##### + **B** E **F** **.H** The High Court approached the matter from an entirely different angle. The learned judge held that this case would be governed by the 1953 Act and rules 54 and _55_ enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 28 of the 1953 Act have provided a specific forum, viz., a reference to the Cane Commissioner and appeal to the State "70. Disputes which may be referred _to_ arbitration-(!) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society other than a dispute regard ing disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a societ~ arises- ......... ". It will be.crystal clear that while making a statutory provision fo" resolution of disputes involving co-operative socfoties by arbitration by the Registrar, the legislature in terms excluded a dispute relating to disciplinary action taken by the society against paid servants ~f the -~ society from the purview of the compulsory arbitration. It is legisla tive exposition of the topic under discussion. It must, however, be made distinctly clear that at the relevant time W12 Act was in force and the contention bas to be answered with reference to 1912 Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is, however, difficult to believe that the 1965 Act which repealed and replaced the 1912 Act excluded from the field of operation that which was already included under the repealed Act. 0.u the contrary it would appear that what was implicit in the 1912 Act and the rules framed thereunder that such a dispute did not touch as the business of the society and was not within the purview of the compulsory arbitration, was made explicit by expressly excluding it from the field of compulsory arbitration. ~ excluding it from the field of compulsory arbitration. ~ However, we would rest this judgment on the second limb of the submission in that not only the dispute must be one touching the # business of the society but it must be between the co-operative society A and its officer. Firstly respondent being shown not to be one of enu-/j merated officers of 'the society nor a person empowered to give direc- \ tions in regard to the business of the society under the rules or the ' bye-laws, he would not be an officer within the meaning of the expression in 1912 Act. Any dispute between an employee not being an officer and the society would not attract' rule 115. In that view of the matter such a dispute would fall outside the purview of rule 115 and it being a civil dispute and civil court will have jurisdiction to enter- --, tain and adjudicate upon the same. #### + \ COOPERATIVE CANE UNION _v._ LILAOHAR _(Desai,_ J.) 5 71 o(}overnment and as rule 108 is not attracted the dispute is not required to be referred to arbitration and, therefore, the civil court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. With respect, it is difficull to subs cribe to .this view of the High Court. 1953 Act has been enacted to -regulate supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in sugar factories, _gur,_ _rab_ and _khandsari_ manufacturing units. It envisages setting up of a sugarcane board and the board was entrusted with the function pertaining to the regulation, supply and purchase of cane for sugar factories and for the maintenance of healthy relation between occupiers, managers, of factories, cane growers, co-operative societies, etc. The Act also envisaged setting up of a developJllent council and its functions have been enumerated in s. 6. On a survey of these provisions it appears that the Act was enacted to regulate relations between the cane-grower~ on one hand and sugar factories on the other. The expression' 'cane growers' co-operative society' has been defined in s. 2(f) to mean a society registered urider the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, one of the objects of which is to sell cane grown by its members and includes the foderation of such societies registered under s. 8 of the said Act. The appellant is thus a co-operative society and it being a federation of such co-operative societies it is also included in the expression "cane growers' co-operative society". Section 28(2)(n) of the Act was relied upon to show that the State Government has power to frame rules amongst others, for the control of the staff and finances. In exercise of this power rules 54 and 55 have been enacted. Rule 54 provides that the power to appoint, grant leave of absence, to punish, dismiss, transfer and control secretaries,- assistant secretaries and accountants of Cane Growers' Co-operative Societies whether permanent or temporary shall be exercised by the federation, subject to the general control of the Cane Commissioner who may rescind or modify any order of the Federation. There is a proviso which is not relevant for the present purpose. Rule 55 confers powers similar to those enumerated in rule 54 to be exercised by the society in respect of other staff subject to the regulations made by the federation and the general control of the Cane Commissioner. Shorn of embellishmeht, rule 55 confers power on the Federation, namely, the first appellant, to make regulations for appointment, granting leave of absence, punishment, dismissal and transfer of the staff other than those enumerated ·in rule 54 and these regulations have to be made subject to the general control of the Cane Commissioner Rule 108 provides for compulsory arbitration of disputes therein mentioned and it is common ground that a dispute of the present nature under examination win not be covered by rule 108. The High Court observed that rules 54 and 55 being a complete code in itself with regard to regulaticn making power for disciplinary action with a provision for A B c D E F G H A B c D E F 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] l S.C.R. appeal to the Cane Commissioner and rule 108 not being attracted,. the civil court will have jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute. The High Court overlooked the fact that 1953 Act neither repeals nor replaces 1912 Act. A cane-grower other than a Cane-growers' Cooperative Society would be governed by 1953 Act but the cane grower not being a co-operative society it would not be governed by the 1912 Act. A Cane-Growers' Co-operative Society would be governed with regard to the provisions for law of Co-operative Societies by 1912 Act and in respect of its business of growing and selling cane it would be governed by 1953 Act. Both Acts operate in an entirely different field and are enacted with different objects. in view. 1953 Act neither trenches upon 1912 Act nor supersedes or supplants any provision of it. Therefore, some provisions of 1953 Act cannot override or super· sede the provisions of 1912 Act and by mere reference to the provisions of 1953 Act the High Court was in error in totally overlooking and ignoring the provisions in 11:) 12 Act and the rules enacted thereunder. However, in view of our finding that the dispute brought before the Civil Court in this case was not a dispute between a society audits officer and, therefore, one of the conditions for attracting rule ll 5 having not been satisfied, the civil court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. For these reasons the decision of the High Court is confirmed. Accordingly this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. As the dispute is very old, we hope that it would be expeclitiously disposed of by the learned district· judge to whom the matter was remanded by the High Court. _Appeal dismissed._ S.R. /