THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.versusPRABHAKAR SITARAM BHADANGE

                       [2017] 4 S.C.R. 723



   THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING                        A
           FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.
                                v.
             PRABHAKAR SITARAM BHADANGE
                  (Civil Appeal No. 1488 of2017)                     B
                        MARCH 30, 2017
           [A. K. SIKRI AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
      Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - s.91 -
Jurisdiction of- Cooperative Court to decide 'service dispute' under C
the Act - Respondent was in the services of the appellant
Corporation - He was dismissed from service on the ground of
misconduct - Respondent approached the Cooperative Court
challenging the order of dismissal - Appellant-corporation filed
application for rejection of petition filed by resp;i1dent on the
ground that the Cooperative Court set up under the Act did not D
have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the service dispute between
the employer and employee, inasmuch as the dispute in question
did not touch upon the business of the society and was not covered
by provisions of s.91 - Held: Specific powers given to the
Cooperative Court under the provisions of s.91 are of limited nature E
- Clearly disputes between the cooperative society and its employees
are not covered uls.91 - Dispute in question does not come within
the scope of 'management or business of a society' uls.91 (I) -
Therefore, the Cooperative Court did not have jurisdiction to
entertain the claim filed by the respondent - Petition filed by
respondent before the Cooperative Court not maintainable.             F
     Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - s.91(1) ~
Expression 'management or business of a society' - Discussed.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 On perusal of provisions of s.91, a firm G
conclusion is arrived at, that service dispute between the
employees of a cooperative society and the management of the
society are not covered by ~he aforesaid provision. The context ·
in which the word 'oj]icers'is used is altogether different, namely,
election of the committee or its officers. Thus, the word 'officers'
                                                                     H
                                723
724            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A     has reference to elections. It is in the same hue expression
      'officer' occurs second time as well. [Para 11] [731-C]
            2. The expression 'business of the society' would not cover
      the service matters of employer and employee. It is crystal clear
      that dispute in question does not come within the scope of
B     'business of the society'. Also, the dispute cannot be treated as
      dispute relating to 'management of the society'. Thus, clearly
      the dispute raised by the respondent is not covered within the
      meaning of Section 91 of the Act and, therefore, the Cooperative
      Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim filed
C     by the respondent. [Paras 12-14) [731-D, E; 732-E; 733-q
             3. The provisions of Section 91 of the Act spells out the
      specific powers that are given to the Cooperative Court and those
      powers are of limited nature. The disputes between. the
      cooperative society and its employees are not covered by the
      said provision. As a consequence, it is held that the petition filed
D     by the respondent before the Cooperative Court is not
      maintainable. It would however, be open to the respondent to
      file a civil suit. [Paras 16 and 18)(733-G; 734-F]
            Deccan Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand
            Jugraj Jain [1969) 1 SCR 887; Coop. Central Bank
E           Ltd. v. Addi. Industrial Tribunal (1969) 2 SCC 43 :
            [1970] 1 SCR 206; Marinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v.
            Marinda Coop. Sugar Mills Workers' Union (2006) 6
            SCC 80 : [2006) 3 Suppl. SCR 473 - relied on.
           Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar v. Managing Director,
F          Kannaded Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Anr. 1998 -
           (3) Mh.L.J. 214; Executive Committee of Vaish Degree
           College, Shamli & Ors. v. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. (1976)
           2 SCC 58: (1976] 2 SCR 1006; Ghaziabad Zita Sahkari
           Bank Ltd. v. Addi. Labour Commissioner & Ors. (2007)
G          11 SCC 756 : [2007] 1 SCR 1007;Dharappa v. Bijapur
           Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. (2007) 9
           SCC 109 : [2007) 5 SCR 729;Gujarat State Cooperative
           Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad & Ors.
           (1979) 3 SCC 123; R.C. Tiwari v. MP. State Cooperative
           Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 125 -
H          referred to.
   THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE                   725
       CORPORATION v. PRABHAKAR SITARAM BHADANGE


                       Case Law Reference                              A
1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 214            referred to            Para 5
[1976] 2 SCR 1006               referred to             Para 7
(2007] 1 SCR 1007               referred to            Para9
(2007] 5 SCR 729                referred to             Para9          B

[1969] 1 SCR 887                relied on              Para 13
(1970) 1 SCR 206                relied on               Para 13
(2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 473         relied on               Para 13
(1979) 3 sec 123                referred to             Para 14
                                                                        c
(1997) s sec 12s                referred to             Para 17
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1488
pf2017.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2014 of the High Court    D
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.
7324of20I3.
      M,Y. Deshmukh, Yatin M. Jagtap, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Amo! B. Karande, Adv. for the Respondent.
                                                                        E
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. The appellant, Maharashtra State Cooperative
Housing Finance Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the
'Corporation'), is a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). F
The respondent had joined the services in the appellant Corporation in
the year 1975 as an Inspector. He was promoted to the post of Branch
Manager (Class-0 in the year 2000. For certain acts of misconduct
allegedly committed by the respondent, he was put under suspension
vide orders dated July 11, 2003. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was served
upon him and the departmental inquiry conducted, which resulted in G
dismissal order dated April 28, 2006 passed by the Corporation, dismissing
the respondent from service. His departmental appeal having dismissed,
the respondent approached the Cooperative Court at Aurangabad, which
is set up under the Act, on April 19, 2007 challenging the orders of
dismissal from service as well as the order rejecting the departmental H
726            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A appeal by filing Dispute No. 61 of 2007. On receiving the notice in the
  said dispute petition, the Corporation filed an application for rejection of
  the petition of the respondent on the ground that the Cooperative Court
  set up under the Act did not have the jurisdiction to entertain an<l decide
  the service dispute between the employer and the employee, inasmuch
  as the dispute in question did not touch upon the business of the society
B
  and was not covered by the provisions of Section 91 of the Act. The
  Cooperative Court dismissed the said application holding that it had the
  requisite jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Order of the Cooperative
  Court was challenged by the appellant before the Cooperative Appellate
  Court in the form of an appeal. This appeal was dismissed confirming
C the orders of the Cooperative Court. Further challenge was laid by the
  appellant by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at
  Bombay,Aurangabad Bench: This writ petition has also been dismissed
  vide judgment dated January 21, 2014. Present appeal assails the said
  judgment of the High Court.
 D           2. Froin the aforesaid, it becomes clear that the issue that needs
      to be decided is as to whether the Cooperative Court establisht'd under
      the Act has the requisite jurisdiction to decide 'service dispute' between
      a cooperative society established under the Act and its employees.
         3. Section 91(1) of the Act, scope whereof is to be examined,
 E reads as under:
            "91. Disputes. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
            other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the
            constitution, elections of the committee or its officers other than
            elections of committees of the specified societies including its
 F          officer, conduct of general meetings, management or business of
            a society shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, or
            by a federal society to which the society is affiliated or by a creditor
            of the society, to the Cooperative Court if both the parties thereto
            are one or the other of the following -
 G          (a) a society, its committee, any past committee, any past or
                present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present
                servant or nominee, heir or legal representative of any
                deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the
                society, or the liquidator of the society or the official assignee
                of a deregistered society;
 H
    THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE                        727
  CORPORATION v. PRABHAKAR SITARAM BHADANGE [A. K. SIKRI, J.]


       (b) a member, past member of a person claiming through a A
           member, past member of a deceased member of society, or a
           society which is a member of the society or a person who
           claims to be a member of the society;
       (c) a person other than a member of the society, with whom the
           society, has any transactions in respect of which any ' B
           restrictions or regulations have been imposed, mace or
           prescribed under Section 43, 44 or 45, and any person claiming
           through such person;
       (d) a surety of a member, past member or deceased member, or
            surety of a person other than a member with whom the society     c
            has any transaction in respect of which restrictions have been
           'prescribed under Section 45, whether such surety or person
            is or is not a member of the society;
       (e) any other society, or the liquidator of such a society or
            deregistered society or the official assignee of such a D
            deregistered society."
         4. As the plain language of Section 91 suggests, primarily those
· disputes which pertain to the constitution of the society or the elections,
  management or business of society, etc., are to be decided by the
  Cooperative Court. Such disputes are normally between the members E
  of the society or between the society and its members. However, this
  Section also uses the expression 'it's officers' and on that· basis, it is·
  argued by the respondent that disputes of employees/officers with the
  management'and the society can also be covered, more particularly, the
  dispute regarding termination of the officer, which is the subject matter
  of the petition filed by the respondent.· It is further argued that in any F
  case disputes pertaining to 'management or business of a society' are
  wide enough to cover the dispute between the society as an employer
  and its employees.
         5. Before the High Court it was argued b.Y, the counsel for the
  respondent that the respondent was not claiming reinstatement as he G
  had attained the age of superannuation when the dispute was filed.
  Therefore, while challenging the resolution of the respondent dismi~sing
  his services, the respondent was seeking compensation for wrongful
  dismissal. It was, thus, argued that since reinstatement was not claimed,
. the award of compensation was within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative
                                                                             H
728             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2Gl 7] 4 S.C.R.


A Court. This contention of the respondent is accepted by the High Court
  relying upon its earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Pralhad
  Vithalrao Pawar v. Managing Director, Kannaded Sahakari Sakhar
  Karkltana Ltd. & Anr. 1 The rationale behind this view takea in the
  afore~aid judgment by the High Court was that the remedy under Section
  91(1) of the Act is a substitute for the remedy which could have been
B available before the Civil Court as the forum created under Section 91 is
  a substitute for the Civil Court and created under a special legislation.
  Since the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to award damages, the
  Cooperative Court would be vested with same powers as its substitute.
  The High Court also held that the respondent herein was workiPg as the
C Manager with the appellant Corporation and, therefore, was not
   'workman 'within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
  Act, 1947. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was
  that, no doubt the Cooperative Court was the substitute of the Civil Court,
  but, at the same time, it was the creature of the statute and only limited
D powers were conferred upon the Cooperative Court and not all the
  powers of the Civil Court. These powers pertained to the nature of
  disputes which were categorically delineated under Section 91 of the
  Act. According to the learned counsel, the Cooperative Court was vested
  with the jurisdiction to decide only those disputes which touch upon the
  business of the society and since it was not a dispute pertaining to the
E business of the society or the election of committee or its officers, and
  was an employer-employee dispute, Section 91 did not give any power
  to the Cooperative Court to decide such disputes which arise between
  the employer and the employee.
         6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, adopted
F the afore-noted reasons as given by the High Court. His submission was
  that the word 'officer' occurring in Section 91 would include disputes
  between the management and its officers, i.e. employees. He also
  submitted that the disputes relating to 'management' of a society should
  be read widely to include service disputes as well.
G             7. We may state at the outset that it was conceded at the Bar that
      if the employee of a cooperative society is covered by the definition of
      'workman 'within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
      claims a relief of reinstatement, in that event the Cooperative Court will
      not have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim, inasmuch as, relief of
      reinstatement cannot be granted by the Cooperative Court. Such a relief
H     '1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 214
  THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE                                  729
CORPORATION v. PRABHAKARSITARAMBHADANGE [A. K. SIKRI,J.]


can only be granted by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal                   A
constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act having regard to the fact
that special and complete machinery for this purpose is provided under
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court stands ousted. This is so held by this Court consistently in a number
ofjudgments 2• These observations are made on the premise that even if               B
it is accepted that the Cooperative Court established under the Act is a
substitute of a Civil Court, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant
relief would not go beyond the jurisdiction _which has been vested in the
Civil Court. When admittedly the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction
to grant any such relief and its jurisdiction is barred in view of tht law
laid down in the aforesaid judgment, as afortiorari; the jurisdiction of             C
the Cooperative Court shall also stand barred. We may also clarify one
more aspect. Contract of personal services is not enforceable under the
common law. Section 14, read with Section 4l(e) of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963, specifically bars the enforcement of such a contract. It is for
this reason the principle oflaw which is well established is that the Civil          D
Court does not have the jurisdiction to grant relief of reinstatement as
giving of such relief would amount to enforcing the contract of personal
services. However, as laid down in the cases referred to above, and
also in Executive Committee of Vaisll Degree College, Sllamli &
Ors. v. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. 3 , there are three exceptions to the
aforesaici rule where the contract of personal services can be enforced:             E
        (a) in the case of a public servant who has been dismissed from
             service in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of
             India;
        (b) in the case of an employee who could be reinstated in an
            industrial adjudication by the Labour Court·or an Industrial             F
            Tribunal; and
         (c) in the case of a statutory body, its employee could be
             reinstated when it has acted in breach of the mandt'.tory
              obligations imposed by the statute.
                                                                                     G
       8. Even when the employees falling under any of the aforesaid
three categories raise dispute qua their termination, the Civil Court is
'Uttar Prac!esh Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v. Chandra Kiran Tyage, 1970 1 LU 32;
Dr. S.B. Dutta v. University of Delhi, 1959 SCR 1236 and S.R. Tewari v. District
Board, Agra 1964 I LU I
3   (1976)2SCCS8                                                                     H
730            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A not empowered to grant reinstatement and the remedy would be, in the
     first two categories, by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the
     Constitution or the Administrative Tribunal Act, as the case inay be, and
   · in the third category, it would be under the Industrial Disputes Act. An
     employee who does not fall in any of the aforesaid exceptions cannot
     claim reinstatement. His only remedy is to file a suit in the Civil Court
B
     seeking declaration that termination was wrongful and claim damages
     for such wrongful termination of services. Admittedly, the appellant
     Corporation is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The
     respondent also cannot be treated as a Government/public servant as he
     was not under the employment of any Government. He was also not
c 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act as he was working as
     Manager with the appellant Corporation.
             9. In the aforesaid conspectus, we have to examine as to whether
  · this power which is available with the Civil Court to grant damages is
     now given to the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Act. We
D may also mention at this stage that some of the States have statutes
     which contain provisions regarding management and regulations of the
     cooperative society, where specific machinery under these State
     Cooperative Societies Acts is provided for resolution of employment
     disputes as well, between the cooperative societies and its employees,
      that too by excluding the applicability oflabour laws. No doubt, in such
E cases, the disputes between the cooperative societies and it employees,
      including the workmen, would be dealt with by such machinery and the
      general Act, like the Industrial Disputes Act, would not be applicable
      (See Ghaziabad Zita Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addi. Labour
      Commissioner & Ors. 4 and Dharappa v. Bijapur Coop. Milk
F Producers Societies Union Ltd. 5). Pertinently, in the instant case, Section·
      91 specifically excludes the disputes between the cooperative society as
      employer and its 'workmen'. Ultimately, the outcome depends upon the
      powers that are given to the Cooperative Court or the stipulated tribunal
      created under such Acts. It is in this hue we have to find out as to
      whether Section 91 of the Act at hand empowers Cooperative Courts to
G decide such disputes.
             10. A reading of the provisions of Section 91 would show that
      there are two essential requirements for conferment of exclusive
      jurisdiction on the Cooperative Court which need to be satisfied:
      ' c2001) I I sec 756
 H    '(2007) 9sec Io9
  THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE                          731
CORPORATION v. PRABHAKAR SITARAM BHADANGE [A. K. SIKRI, J .]


        (i) the first requirement is that disputes should be 'disputes A
             touching' the constitution of the society or elections or
             committee or its officers or conduct of general meetings or
             management of society, or business of the society; and
        (ii) the second requirement is that such a dispute is to be referred
             to the Cooperative Court by 'enumerated persons' as B
             specified under sub-section (I) of Section 91.
         11. When we read the provision in the aforesaid manner, we arrive
at a firm conclusion that service dispute between the employees of such
cooperative society and the management of the society are not covered
by the aforesaid provision. The context in which the word 'officers' is
used is altogether different, namely, election of the committee or its c
officers. Thus, the word 'officers' has reference to elections. It is in
the same hue expression 'officer' occurs second time as well.
         12. It was, however, argued by the learned counsel for the
respondent that disputes touching the 'management or business of a
society' would include the dispute between the management of the society D
and its employees.
        13. There are plethora ofjudgments of this Court holding that the
expression 'business ofthe society' would not cover the service matters
of employer and employee. In Deccan Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Da/ichand Jugraj Jain 6, this Court interpreted somewhat similar clause      E
and held that it covered five kinds of disputes. It becomes clear from
the following discussion:
       "Five kinds of disputes are mentioned in sub-section: first, disputes
       touching the constitution of a society; secondly, disputes touching
       election of the office-bearers of a society; thirdly, disputes touching F
       thP. conduct of general meetings of a society; fourthly, disputes
       touching the management of a society; and fifthly disputes touching
       the business of a society. It is clear that the word 'business' in this
       context does not mean affairs of a society because election of
       office-bearers, conduct of general meetings and management of
       a society would be treated as affairs of a society. In this sub- G
       section the word 'business' has been used in a narrower sense
       andcit 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."
6
  (1969) I SCR 887                                                             H
732            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A            Likewise, in Coop. Central Bank Ltd. v. Addi. Industrial
      Tribuna/7, the Court held that the expression 'touching the business
      of the society' would not cover the disputes pertaining to alteration of
      conditions of service of workman.
         These judgments were taken note of in Marinda Coop. Sugar
B Mills Ltd. v. Marinda Coop. Sugar Mills Workers' Union 8, where
  scope of Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 came
  up for consideration. That section provided for reference of dispute to
  arbitration 'if any dispute touching the constitution, management or
  the business of a cooperative society arises'. Following the aforesaid
  judgments, the Court gave limited meaning to the aforesaid expression
C and held that the suit filed by the Workers' Union of the cooperative
  society claiming dearness allowance on the wages plus fixed allowance
  in accordance with the Third Wage Board Report was maintainable in
  the Civil Court, and such a dispute was not covered by the provisions of
  Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
D           The reading of the aforesaid judgments make it crystal clear that
      dispute of this nature does not come within the scope of'business of the
      society'.
           14. We now advert to the question as to whether such a dispute
   can be treated as dispute relating to 'management of the society'. On
 E this aspect as well, there is a direct judgment of this Court in Gujarat
   State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad &
   Ors. 9 wherein the expression 'management ofthe society' was assigned
   the fotlowing meaning:
            "35. We will now focus attention on the expression "management
 F          of the Society" used in Section 96( 1) of the Act of 1961.
            Grammatically, one meaning of the term 'management' is: "the
            Board of Directors' or "the apex body" or "Executive Committee .
            at the helm which guides, regulates, supervises, directs and controls
            the affairs of the Society". In this sense it may not include the
 G          individuals who under the overall control of that governing body
            or Committee, run the day-to-day business of the Society,
            (see Words and Phrases, by West Publishing Co., Permanent
            Edn., Vol. 26, p. 357, citing Warner and Swasey
      '(t969J 2 sec 43
      'c2006J 6 sec so
H     '(1979) 3 sec 123
  THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE                            733
CORPORATION v. PRABHAKAR SITARAM BHADANGE [A. K. SIKRI, J.]


         Co. v. Rusterholz D.C. Minn [41 F Supp 398, 505) . Another A
         meaning of the term "management", may be: 'the act or ·acts of
         managing or governing by direction, guidance, superintendence,
         regulation and control, the affairs of a Society'.
         36. A still wider meaning of the term which will encompass the
         entire staff of servants and workmen of the Society, has been B
         canvassed for by Mr Dholakia. The use of the term "management"
         in such a wide sense in Section 96(1) appears to us, to be very
         doubtful."
      It, thus, clearly fo Hows that the dispute raised by the respondent is
not covered within the meaning of Section 91 of the Act and, therefore,        c
the Cooperative Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the
claim filed by the respondent.
       15. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the
judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State
Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. 10• However, a close D
scrutiny of the said judgment would reveal that the power of the Registrar
to deal with the dispute of dismissal from service of the employee was
recognised having regard to Section 5~ of the M.P. Cooperative Societies
Act, 1960 which gave specific power to the Registrar to determine
conditions of employment in societies, including deciding the disputes
regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary actions E
taken by the society arising between the society and its employees.
Therefore, that judgment would be of no help to the respondent.
        16. It may be noted that the High Court, in the impugned judgment,
has itself proceeded on the basis that ifthe dispute relates to reinstatement,
the Cooperative Court will not have any jurisdiction. The main reason F
for confe,Tingjurisdiction upon the Cooperative Court in the instant case
is that the Cooperative Court has replaced the Civil Court and, therefore,
powers of the Civil Court are given to the Cooperative Court. However,
the High Court erred in not further analysing the provisions of Section
91 of the Act which spells out the specific powers that are given to the G
Cooperative Court and those powers are oflimited nature. Our aforesaid
analysis leads to the conclusion that the disputes between the cooperative
society and its employees are not covered by the said provision. We
may hasten to add that if the provision is couched in a language to include
10
     (1997) s sec 12s
                                                                               H
734                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017) 4 S.C.R.


A     such disputes (and we find such provisions in the Cooperative Societies
      Acts of certain States) and it is found that the Cooperative Society Act
      provides for complete machinery of redressal of grievances of the
      employees, ·then even the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/. Industrial
      Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act shall be barred having regard
      to the provisions of such a special statute vis-a-vis general statute like
B
      the Industrial Disputes Act {See - Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank
      Ltd. 11 }.
             17. In Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank
      Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad & Ors. u, an employee working as Additional
  Supervisor was removed from service by giving one month's pay in lieu
 Cof Notice under the Staff Regulations. He had issued a notice under the
  Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, as he was an employee as defined
  under section 2(13) of the said Act. One of the questions that was
  considered by this Court was whether a dispute raised by the said employee
  for setting aside his removal from service on the ground that it was an
D act of victimization and for reinstatement in service with back wages
  was one 'touching the management or business of the society', within
  the contemplation of the Co-operative Societies Act. This Court held
  that the expression 'any dispute' referred to in section.96 of the Gujarat
  Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 did not cover a dispute of the kind
  raised by the respondent employee against the bank.
E
          18. As a result, this appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court
  is set aside and the Division Bench judgment, on which reliance is placed
  by th~ High Court in the impugned judgment, is overruled. As a
  consequence, it is held that the petition filed by the respondent before
  the Cooperative Court is not maintainable. It would, however, be open
F to the respondent to file a civil suit. Needless to mention, in suc:1 a civil
  suit filed by the respondent, he would be at liberty to file application
  under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in order to save the limitation.
               No costs.


      Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.




      11   Refer Footnote 4
      "(1979)3sec123