Madras High Court
The Tanjore Co-Operative Marketing ... vs R. Krithivasan on 27 April, 1950
Equivalent citations: AIR1951MAD352, (1950)2MLJ335, AIR 1951 MADRAS 352
ORDER Govinda Menon, J.
1. The only point raised in this case is whether the suit is barred by reason of Section 51, Madras Co-operative Societies Act, The defendant, a Co-operative Society, contested the claim of the plaintiff, an ex-employee, who wanted to recover the security deposit made by him at the time he was entertained by the society. The suit was for recovery of the security deposit along with the arrears of salary. The point of jurisdiction raided by the Co-operative Society was that the claim for the refund of the security deposit was a matter touching the business of the society as contemplated in Section 51 of the Act and therefore the civil Court has no jurisdiction. The teamed District Munsif has found that this la not a matter touching the business of the society and has decreed the suit. My attention has been drawn to a decision in Narayana Nair v. Secretary, Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd., 1948-1 M. L. J. 331 : (A. I. R. (96) 1948 Mad. 272) where Satyanarayana Rao J.
has held that where an employee of the Co-operative Society uses the Co-operative Society for damages for wrongful dismissal, it cannot he held that the action was touching the business of the Society and that the civil Courts have no jurisdiction. In that case my learned brother has distinguished a judgment of Kuppuswami Aiyer J. in C. R. P. No. 1134 of 1940. Mr. Jagadisa Aiyar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, contends that the observations of Kuppuswami Aiyar J. are applicable ad idem to the facts of the present case. I am not satisfied that when an employee asks for the refund of his security deposit and for the arrears of salary that is a matter relating to the business of the society. The business of the society is not taking of security deposits, but the carrying on of some kind of co-operative business. In such circumstances, I agree with the learned District Munsif that Section 51, Madras Co operative Societies Act, is no bar to the present suit. The other points raised in the civil revision petition are all questions of fact, which are binding on me. The Civil revision petition is therefore dismissed with costs.