Desai, J. - (1.) How technical plea of want of jurisdiction has pushed a petty employee from pillar to post since April 1964 and pilloried him with cost presumably unbearable by him, is shockingly demonstrated in this case.
(2.) First respondent joined service as a petty employee in Cane Development Department of the U. P. State Government somewhere in 1949. On the formation of the U. P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellant'), services of the first respondent stood transferred and were put at the disposal of the appellant and he was styled as Supervisor. At the relevant time he was rendering service under the second appellant, District Co-operative Sugarcane Development Society Ltd. (now designated as Zila Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd.) Budayun, a federating unit of the first appellant and was in charge of manure godown. He was suspended from service with effect from October 18, 1958. A prosecution was launched against him for embezzlement of funds of the second appellant in that he failed to account for 2931/2 bags of amonium sulphate entrusted to him as keeper of manure godown. The case ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the first respondent by the High Court. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him on the same charge and ultimately he was dismissed from service on April 4, 1964. First respondent filed a suit being O. S. No. 30/ 64 in the Court of Civil Judge, Budayun, inter alia, for a declaration that the order dismissing him from service was invalid and void and for a further declaration that he continued to be in service and for arrears of pay till the date of the suit. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendants (present appellants) number of contentions were raised but only one may be noticed for the present appeal. The contention was that the dispute involved in the suit was between an employee of a Co-operative Cane Growers' Society and the Society and, therefore, civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but the plaintiff must approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for reference of dispute to arbitration. The trial Court decreed the suit as per judgment dated May 24, 1967, and granted the declaration prayed for. The appellants preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1967 to the Court of District Judge, Budayun, who allowed the appeal holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the dispute was between an officer of a Co-operative Society and the Society and the dispute was touching the business of the Society and, therefore, Rule 115 of the Co-operative Societies Rules enacted by the U. P. Government in exercise of the rule making power conferred by Section 43 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1912 Act') in its application to the U. P. State would be attracted and the dispute will have to be resolved by arbitration by the Registrar. In accordance with this finding the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. First respondent preferred Second Appeal No. 582/71 to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The learned single Judge allowed the appeal holding that as the first appellant is governed by U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchases) Act, 1953 ('1953 Act' for short), it being both a Co-operative Society and a Cane Growers' Co-operative Society and in case of an officer or servant of such cane growers' co-operative society any dispute between its officers and servants and such society would be governed by Rules 54 and 55 framed under 1953 Act which provide a complete machinery for resolution of disputes and Rule 108 does not encompass dispute arising out of a disciplinary proceeding between such society and its officers and servants and therefore, in the absence of such provision for compulsory arbitration of such dispute the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. The learned Judge accordingly allowed the appeal and remanded the suit to the first appellate court for decision on merits. Hence this appeal by special leave by original defendants.
(3.) The only contention that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit arising out of a disciplinary proceeding held by a Cane Growers' Co-operative Society, governed both by 1912 Act and 1953 Act against its employee or such dispute falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act to be resolved by arbitration alone. A brief survey of the relevant provisions is necessary for the effective disposal of this contention.;