Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No.43 of 22.2.1995 seeking declaration to the effect that members of the plaintiff-respondent union were entitled to the benefit of Variable Dearness Allowance (for brevity, VDA') of basic wages plus fixed allowance in accordance with paragraph 317(ii) of the Third Wage Board report with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from withdrawing the payment of VDA on the interim fixed amount of Rs. 150/- being paid to the members of the plaintiff-respondent union. It has been claimed that the plaintiff-respondent is a registered union and is competent to sue and be sued as it has a legal identity. Shri Gurmit Singh has been authorised to file the suit and do all necessary acts for that purpose. It is further claimed that Punjab State Confederation of Co-operative Sugar Mills limited vide letter dated 1.11.1993 has accorded sanction for extending the benefit of interim relief. The defendant-appellant has paid VDA to the members of the plaintiff-respondent union on the interim relief i.e. fixed allowance of Rs. 150/- per month in accordance with paragraph 317 sub-para 4(ii) of the Third Wage Board recommendations. The defendant-appellant vide its letter dated 8.2.1995 has clarified that members of the plaintiff-respondent union were not entitled to VDA on the fixed allowance of Rs. 150/-and they would not be allowed VDA in future. The plaintiff-respondent union represented on 30.1.1995 claiming the aforementioned benefit. It was further clarified that the members of the plaintiff-respondent union were ready to accept the policy on the same pattern as is followed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh where they have raised the value of one point rise in index from Rs. 1.65 to Rs. 2/-. A further plea was set up that before withdrawing the benefit of Rs. 150/-, opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the plaintiff-respondent and the recommendations of the Third Wage Board were binding.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-service of notice under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act? OPD

6. Relief.

On issues Nos. 1 and 2, the trial Court held that the defendant-appellant has no right to withdraw the 'VDA' in accordance with the recommendations of Third Wage Board. It further held that the defendant-appellant has no right to withdraw the VDA and if any clarification with regard to payment of VDA was required, then it should have been obtained by the defendant-appellant from the Third Wage Board. Under issue No. 3, the suit was held to be maintainable as no defect in the form of the suit was pointed out.

6. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has argued that suit of the plaintiff-respondent was not maintainable because there is mandatory bar created by Section 79 of the Act obliging the plaintiff-respondent to issue 2 months notice on the defendant-appellant before instituting the suit. According to the learned counsel, the expression "business of the society" used in Section 79 of the Act would necessarily include the financial matters concerning payment of salary and allowances to the plaintiff-respondent According to the learned counsel a wider interpretation of Section 79 of the Act would be necessary because otherwise the basic public policy underlying the provisions for issuance of notice before filing the suit would be defeated. In support of his submissions the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajpal Grover v. The Guru Nanak Joint Coop. Farming Society Ltd. situated at village Gumthala Garhu, 1982 P.L.J. 289. Learned counsel has further contended that those disputes which touch upon the constitution, management of business of a cooperative society under Section 55(1)(2) of the Act are liable to be referred to arbitration. According to the learned counsel, the dispute raised in the suit by the plaintiff-respondent with regard to payment of VDA on the basis of recommendations of Third Wage Board would be covered as it touches the management or business of the society.

(o) To raise loans from the financial institutions against the mortgage affixed assets or otherwise creating prior charge on such assets and to execute documents in favour of the State Government in respect of guarantees to be furnished to such institutions on behalf of the Mills.

(p) To do such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of ail or any of the above objects."

A perusal of above referred Bye-Law No. 5 would make it evident that the dispute raised by the plaintiff-respondent in the suit with regard to payment of VDA or its withdrawal does not touch upon the business of the society as reflected in its objects. The business of the society as reflected in its Bye-Laws is to promote the economic interest of the members of the society and for that purpose to carry out the manufacture of sugar, sugar products and other ancillary products. It is further provided that for the aforementioned purpose to make arrangement for the sale and also to take necessary steps for the development of sugarcane and sugar beet. In none of the Clauses (a) to (p) the dispute concerning the pay of its employees has been mentioned. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the claim with regard to payment of VDA or its withdrawal would touch the business of the society.