JUDGMENT
Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Appellant here (The Rajpura Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd., Rajpura)
was aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby and whereunder, he allowed the appeal and issued
mandatory injunction directing the Appellant to pay salary from February, 1989 to Au
gust 5, 1991 as also bonus to which he was entitled during the said period. In addition
to the aforesaid, he also directed that the Respondent herein (Puran Singh) shall be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum with arrears from the date when the amount fell due till realisation. Mr. S.S. Dalal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellate herein has raised a short point to the effect that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, covered under the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as, ‘the said Act’).
3. In order to effectively adjudicate the lis involved, the facts which are really necessary to be taken note of, are that the sole Respondent herein became aggrieved by the appellant in relation to their action in not paying him salary and bonus for the period
February 1989 to August 5, 1991 at the rate of Rs.2,517.90/- per month. On calculation, the total salary came to Rs.75,794/- and bonus to the extent of Rs. 6,405/- upto 31.3.1990. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the further details of the facts of
the lis involved, save and accept to record that what is evident is that the sole Respondent prayed for monetary benefits in terms of service conditions and that is salary and bonus. The Trial Court agreed with the submissions of the Appellant herein to the extent
that the suit was barred under Section 55 read with Section 82(3) of the said Act and accordingly, proceeded to hold that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Oil appeal, the Additional District Judge, Patiala, by his judgment dated 4.12.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.255 of 1999, held that the suit was maintainable and directed the issuance of a mandatory injunction in
terms stated in the aforementioned paragraphs. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of P.Shanmugam v. The Secretary Co-operative Fire and General Insurance Society Limited, Madras-1 M.L.J.
1972(2) 134. In support of the contention that the words “touching the business of the society” would contain within its sweep claims for salary etc. It is in that context that
this Court has been called upon to examine the provisions of Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 which reads thus:-
55. Disputes 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 or the business of a co-operative 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 or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society or liquidator, past or present; or
(c) between the society or its committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society’ or
(d) between the society and any other co-operative society between a society and liquidator of another society or between the liquidator of one society and the
liquidator of another society.
such disputes 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.
(2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), the following be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of co-operative society, namely:
(a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not.
(b) a claim by a society against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any Officer of the society;
(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this
Section is or not a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a
co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not
be called in question in any Court.
(Emphasis supplied).
4. Upon a perusal of the very wording of the Statute, it will be evident that the very opening lines of Section 35 clearly indicate that if any dispute touching the Constitution, management or business of co-operative society arises, then that would be referable to the Registrar for his decision and no Court would have jurisdiction to entertain any suit
or other proceedings in respect thereof. The words “business” of co-operative society, or “touching” the business of co-operative society, have to be understood in the context of the principal word used and that is the word “business” which mean trading of commercial or other similar business activities of the society. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be made to apply in relation to the disputes which touch or affect service conditions of an employee. In support of the aforesaid contention, this Court draws inspiration from the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of The Allahabad District Co-operative Limited v. Hanuman Dutt Tiwari? A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 120.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while taking the aforementioned view in Paragraph 2 on the said judgment recorded as follows:
the expression “business of the society” has been construed by several decisions of this Court. In Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain, it was pointed out “the word ‘business’ has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or commercial 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.” In Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, , it is said “but the meaning given to the expression ‘touching the business of the society1, in our opinion, makes it very doubtful whether a dispute in respect of alteration of conditions of service can be held to be covered by this expression. 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 a laying down the conditions of service of its employees, can be said to be a part of its business. It would appear that a dispute relating to conditions of service of the workmen employed by the society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the society.
6. In view of what the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said, this Court does not accept the view held or taken by the Madras High Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in the case of P. Shangugam v. The Secretary, Co-operative Fire and General Insurance Society Limited, Madras-1, M.L.J. 1972(2) 134.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises to be decided in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.