Delhi District Court
Sh. Chhotey Lal vs M/S Co-Operative Society Limited on 21 March, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SMITA GARG, CIVIL JUDGE : DELHI
SUIT NO. 360/03
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SH. CHHOTEY LAL
S/O SH. N. K. PUN,
R/O T-122, BHAGESHWARI MATA,
NEPALI MANDIR, BALJEET NAGAR,
NEW DELHI- 110008.
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,
36/1, SECTOR-9, MADHAV KUNJ, ROHINI,
NEW DELHI
....DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 25, 000/-
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 25, 000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% against the defendant.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is a Cooperative Grouping Housing Society and he was working as watch man since February, 1996 at monthly salary of Rs. 2100/- with the defendant society. According to the plaintiff, despite having a good record, his services were terminated by the defendant society on 26.09.02, without any notice being served upon him and at that time, following amounts were due to the plaintiff from the defendant society:-
2
a. Earned wages for the month of August 2002 Rs. 2, 100/- b. Bonus for the period of 2001-02 & 2002-03 Rs. 4, 000/-
c. Gratuity 1500 X 6 Rs. 9, 000/-
d. One month notice pay Rs. 2, 100/-
e. wages of unavailed earned leaves Rs. 2, 100/-
Total Rs. 19, 300 /-
It has been stated that the plaintiff served a demand notice dated 25.11.02 upon the defendant society through registered AD, UPC but the defendant society neither replied to the said notice nor paid the outstanding amount. Hence, the present suit for recovery was filed.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant society but despite being served, it failed to appear and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 24.02.04.
Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of exparte evidence.
4. In support of his case, the plaintiff has appeared in witness box as PW1. He has led evidence on affidavit wherein he supported the averments made in the plaint.
After recording of evidence, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
5. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
6. Though the testimony of the PW1 has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged but from the reading of the plaint, following three important facts emerge:-
3
1. The defendant is a registered co-operative society;
2. The plaintiff was a paid employee of the defendant society ; and
3. The dispute pertains to the arrears of the salary and other related emoluments of the plaintiff.
In view of the above , the question that arises for consideration is whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable before this court in view Section 93 & 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1977 which are reproduced as under:-
Section 93. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts (1) Save as provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of:
(a) ........................
(b) ........................
(c ) Any dispute required under section 60 to be referred to
the Registrar, and
(d) ........................
Section 60. Dispute which may be referred to arbitration. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force if any dispute touching the constitution, management of the business of a Cooperative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid employee of the society arises:-
(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or
(b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member and or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society or liquidator, past or present or, 4 (c ) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee of the nominee heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased or employee of the society or,
(d) between the society and any other cooperative society, between a society and liquidator of another society or between the liquidator of any society and the liquidator of another society.
Such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute.
A perusal of the above provisions show that the jurisdiction of the courts with respect to the disputes falling within the purview of the said provisions are barred.
Here, it is pertinent to mention that an exception is recognized in section 60 in respect of disputes regarding ''disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid employee of the society''. However, the present dispute does not fall within the exception because it is not the case of the plaintiff that some disciplinary action has been taken against him by the defendant society.
As mentioned above, the first condition stands satisfied from the own case of the plaintiff. Hence, the short question to be determined is as to whether a dispute with regard to the arrears of the salary of an employee can be regarded as touching the business of the society.
In A. Narayana Nair Vs. The Secretary, Tripicane Urban Co- operative society Ltd; AIR (35) 1948 Madras 272, the Hon'ble Madras Court, while dealing with section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, which is akin to the section 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Act, 1972, observed that-
''.....The dispute, therefore, now between the plaintiff and the 5 defendant is whether the action taken by the society by way of punishing the plaintiff by dismissing him from service is proper or not and this dispute is within the exception .........My attention has been drawn to a judgment of Kuppuswami Aiyer J. where the learned Judge held that a claim by a dismissed servant of a co-operative society for recovery of provident fund, travelling allowances and the value of some stationary and postage and a small fraction of salary raised a dispute touching the ''business'' of a registered society and therefore the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred. It was not a case in which the dispute raised can be said to be a dispute regarding disciplinary action.......'' In M.S. Madhva Rao and others Vs. D.V.K. Surya Rao, Member of the Pithapuram Co-operative Bank, Pithapuram & Others, AIR 1954 Madras 103, the Hon'ble High Court observed that-
''We may now proceed to consider the meaning of the expression 'dispute touching the business of a registered society'. The words 'touching the business of a society' must be given their full import.......The word 'touching' does not present much difficulty, as its dictionary meaning 'in reference or relation to, regarding or concerning' thus indicating that the disputes need not directly arise out of the business of the society; but that it is enough that it should have reference or relation to or concern the business of the society. The words 'touching' was clearly not intended to restrict the meaning of the word 'business; it was designed to enlarge its scope. ...........In section 51 of the Act however there is one indication that the word 'business' is not used in a narrow sense for it excludes by the exception disputes regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid servant of the society, thereby indicating that but for the exclusion it would have been a matter relating to the business of the society......'' Further, it was observed that---''In Tanjore Marketing Federation Vs. 6 Krithivasan'', AIR 1951 Madras 352, our Learned brother Govinda Menon J. sitting as a Single Judge, held that a suit by an ex-employee of a society to recover a security deposit made by him at the time when he was entertained by the society and for recovery of arrears of salary was not barred by section 51 and that such a dispute did not relate to the business of the society. According to the learned Judge to taken security deposits was not 'business' of the society which was to carry on some kind of cooperative business. Reference was made in that judgment to a decision of one of us in --Narayana Nair Vs. Secretary T.U.C.S. Ltd., AIR 1948 Madras 272, as supporting the learned Judges conclusion, but it may be remarked that the decision in --AIR 1948 Madras 272, was a case, which was directly within the exception in section 51, that a dispute regarding the disciplinary action taken by a society or its committee against a paid servant is not within the scope of the section, and it does not in any manner help in construing the expression 'touching the business of the society'. In our view, this decision takes a very narrow view of the word 'business' and does not lay down the law, with great respect to the learned Judge, correctly.'' From the aforesaid judgments, it is amply clear that a dispute with regard to the arrears of the salary of an employee shall be regarded as touching the business of the society and thus, such a dispute falls withing the purview and scope of section 60 of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. Accordingly, in my view, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit for recovery of the arrears of the salary and related benefits of the plaintiff in view of the section 60 and 92 of the Delhi Co-operative societies Act, 1972.
In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs is made.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SMITA GARG) CIVIL JUDGE : DELHI 21.03.07