- (1.) THE facts in this case are briefly as follows: The appellant is a cooperative society registered under the bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)its object inter alia is to improve the pecuniary condition of needy and indigent women who become its members. Needy and refugee women are given training in handicrafts and cottage industries for their maintenance. The appellant supplies raw materials to its members and the articles manufactured by them are sold either amongst the members on in the open market to wholesalers or retailers on commission basis. On or about November 19, 1959 the respondent no. 4 Sujata Mitra was appointed superintendent of the Home maintained by the appellant at a salary of Rs. 300/-per month. The appointment was initially for a period of six months. The appointment of the said respondent came about in the following manner: For the purposes of running the establishment the Home engages several workmen and it is run under the direct control and administration of the Vice-President, with two secretaries. From the inception of this Industrial Home, there has been a post-the post of a superintendent whose duty it is to look after the work of the women workers, for betterment of its production and its quality and also to make arrangement for making production consistent with the orders received by the establishment and to market the finished goods. This Home was running at a loss and the vice-president Sm. Bina Das induced the said respondent Sujata Mitra who was a graduate and qualified in special crafts, to give up her employment under the community Development project and to accept the post of the superintendent of the establishment of the appellant called 'udoy Villa. ' It is alleged that during the period when the said respondent acted as superintendent, quality of production improved to a great extent and she became very popular among the workers and other persons connected with this establishment. On or about October 14, 1961, her services were terminated by a letter issued under the name of Sm. Depali Ghosh, joint Secretary of the appellant. It is this matter of the termination of the services of the said respondent that has given rise to a dispute which is the subject-matter of this appeal. The respective cases of the parties were as follows : According to the appellant, the said respondent was appointed on trial for six months only, as superintendent and was incharge of control and supervision of the entire work of the appellant. On the 29th of September 1961 she wrote a letter saying that she wanted to be relieved of her post, but later on withdrew the same. It is alleged that, having lost confidence in the respondent, it was decided by the Managing committee of the appellant to terminate her services and to abolish the post of superintendent. Accordingly the services of th): said respondent were terminated by a resolution passed at the meeting of the board of Directors on the 11th October, 1961 with effect from 15th October, 1961 the case of the said respondent was that she had to work very hard for the establishment and inspite of the pressure of work she was compelled to entertain the friends and guests of the vice-President. This extra burden was resented by her and she thereupon resigned her post, but later on changed her mind. It is alleged that the Vicespresident sm. Bina Das was jealous about the increasing popularity of the said respondent and brought about her dismissal. As stated above, a resolution was passed by the Managing Committee on October 11, 1961 abolishing the post of Superintendent although there was no agenda at the meeting containing any such item to be considered. This is stated to be merely a device to get rid of the said respondent. A dispute was raised on behalf of the respondent by respondent No. 5 - The women's Co-operative Industrial Horne employees Union, Uday Villa. On or about the 28th of August 1963 an industrial dispute was referred to the First industrial Tribunal, in the following terms : "whether the termination of service of Srimati Sujata Mitra is justified ? what relief, if any is she entitled to?"
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 heard the industrial dispute and made an award dated June 20, 1964 by which he held that the termination of the services of the said respondent was not justified, and that she should be paid a compensation of rs. 3000/- for loss of her service and the said sum must be paid within a month of publication of the award in the Calcutta Gazette. On the 1. 7th of November 1964 the appellant made an application in this Court in the writ jurisdiction and a Rule was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause why the said award should not be quashed and for other reliefs. This application was heard by Mitra, J. , who by his order dated the 19th of december 1966 dismissed the same and discharged the Rule. It is against this order that this appeal is directed. Mr. Sen appearing on behalf of the appellant has before us, as in the court below, principally relied on certain technical grounds. We might make it clear before proceeding further that we are against Mr. Sen on the facts and are inclined to accept the facts as stated on behalf of the said respondent. But Mr. Sen has raised very weighty points of law which we shall now proceed to consider. The principal contention of mr. Sen is based on section 86 of the bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940. The relevant provision thereof runs as follows : "any dispute (touching) relating to the affairs of the business of a cooperative society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a society or its managing committee against a paid servant of the society)or of the liquidator of a society shall be referred to the Registrar if the parties thereto are among the following, namely:- (a) the society, its managing committee, any past or present officer, agent or servant or the liquidator of the society ; or , (b) a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of the society; or (c) a surety of a member, past member or deceased member of the society, whether such surety is or is not a member of the society; or (d) any other co-operative society or the liquidator of such society. (The word 'touching' was deleted by the amending Act of 1965.)
(3.) ACCORDING to him, the parties in this case are governed by the Bengali co-operative Societies Act, 1940 and there being a specific provision in tha said Act for referring the dispute for adjudication to the Registrar, Co-operative societies, the matter could not be referred as a dispute under the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 and the order of reference as well as the award made thereon are without jurisdiction and therefore, void.;