Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code). The defendant-Morinda Co-operative Society Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) as plaintiff filed a suit claiming dearness allowance on the wages plus fixed allowance in accordance with para 317 (ii) of the Third Wage Board Report. The first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court, holding that the subject matter of the suit cannot be said to be a dispute touching the business of the society. Accordingly the appeal was allowed. Second Appeal was filed by the defendant (present appellant) contending that the view of the trial court was justified and that of the first appellate court was not justified.
(2.) The plaintiff-Union filed the suit seeking declaration to the effect that the members of the plaintiff-Union was entitled to the benefit of the Variable Dearness Allowance (for short the VDA) on the basic wages plus fixed allowance in accordance with para 317(ii) of the Third Wage Board Report with a consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from withdrawing the payment of VDA from the fixed amount of Rs.150 which was being paid to the members of the Union. Defendant took the stand that since small notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (in short the Act) is required, the suit was not maintainable. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed five issues which are as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit 5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non service of notice under the Punjab Co- operative Societies Act
(3.) The trial court held that the defendant has no right to withdraw the VDA in accordance with the recommendations. Issues 1 and 2 were accordingly answered. It was further held that defendant has no right to withdraw VDA and if any clarification for withdrawal of VDA is required, opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the plaintiff and it should have been obtained from the Third Wage Board. The Issues 1 and 2 were accordingly answered. The suit was held to be maintainable as no defect on the form of the suit was pointed out. But on issue No. 4 it was held that service of notice was mandatory.;