Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In view of the respective contentions of the parties, I heard the parties on the point as to whether this Court can exercise the powers under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC and return the dispute filed by the petitioner in the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act for presenting it before the Civil Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

7. In support of the submissions on the point above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the legal principles settled by this Court in the Case of A-1 Co-operative Housing 901-WP-1934-2017.docx Society Limited vs. R. Jaikisan and others 3,the provisions under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of CPC would apply to the disputes filed under Section 91 of the MCS Act.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Chandra Prem Shah returning the suit filed before the Civil Court for presenting it before the Cooperative Court would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. He, thus, submitted that by applying the same principles, the dispute of the petitioner before the Cooperative Court be returned for filing before the Civil Court having jurisdiction. ANALYSIS:

20. I have considered the rival submissions of both parties. The petitioner filed a dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act to challenge the decision of the respondent bank to terminate the petitioner's services. The petitioner also prayed for compensation for illegal termination and directions for payment of the other service benefits, 901-WP-1934-2017.docx including increment. The issue of jurisdiction was raised by the respondent in the said dispute. The Cooperative Court framed issues on merits as well as on the Cooperative Court's jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act. The Cooperative Court, on the point of jurisdiction, held that the Court had jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute. Thus, the dispute between the parties on merits was examined, and the petitioner's dispute was dismissed on merits.

21. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the dispute on merits, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 97 of the MCS Act before the Cooperative Appellate Court. The Cooperative Appellate Court heard and decided the appeal on merits and dismissed the same, confirming the dismissal of the dispute by the Cooperative Court. Thus, though the issue of jurisdiction was raised, the petitioner's dispute was decided on merits.

22. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the respondent bank and thereafter promoted as Manager. While he was working as a Branch Manager, he was transferred to another branch. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended, and while under suspension, the 901-WP-1934-2017.docx petitioner's services were terminated. Admittedly, the petitioner was working on a managerial cadre when the cause of action arose for filing the dispute. Hence, the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court held that the petitioner was not covered under the definition of workmen as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the Courts held that the dispute was covered within the parameters of Section 91 of the MCS Act. Thus, the issue of jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court was based on the subject matter of challenge in the dispute and not on the lack of inherent jurisdiction.

27. Hence, in this background, the questions that arise in the present petition are whether the provisions of Order VII Rules 10 and 10A of CPC can be made applicable to the present case and, if it is applicable, whether the dispute filed under Section 91 of the MCS Act can be returned for filing in the civil court.

901-WP-1934-2017.docx

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Raizada Topandas, was dealing with the interpretation of Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. Thus, the question arose in the said case as to whether the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court is ousted when the defendant pleads or a question of the relationship of landlord and tenant arises, even though the plaintiff pleads that there is no such relationship. In answering said question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the general principle which governs the question of jurisdiction at the inception of suits. The decision of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ananti was referred to and accepted as the correct legal principle. The observations from the full bench judgment are reproduced in the decision of Raizada Topandas, which says that :