D.N.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE facts in this cases are briefly as follows: The appellant is a co -operative society registered under the Bengal Co -operative Societies Act, Its object inter alia is to improve the poeuaiary 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 material to its members and the artieies manufactured by them are sold either amongst the members of in the open market to wholesalers of retailers on commission basis. On of about 19 November 1950 respondent 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 purpose of running the establishment the home engages several workmen and it is run under the direct central 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 less and the vice -president Smt. 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 'Uday Villa'. It is aileged 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 14 October 1961, her services were terminated by a letter issued under the same of Smt. Depali Ghosh, joint secretary of the appellant. It is this matter of the permission of the services of the said respondent that has given rise to a dispute which is the subject -manner 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 29september 1961 she wrote a letter saying that she wanted to be relieved of her post, but the letter of withdrawn 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 service and to abolish the part of superintendent. Accordingly the services of the said respondent were terminated by a resolution passed at the meeting of the board of directors on 11 October1961 with effect from 15 October 1961. The case of the said respondent was that she had to work very hard for the establishment and in spite 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 posts, but later on changed her mind. It is alleges that the vice -president Smt, Bina Das was jealous about the increasing popular of the said respondent and brought about her dismissal. As stated above, a resolution was passed by the managing committee on 11 October 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 5 -the Workman's Co -operative Industrial Home Employees Union, Uday Villa; On or about 28 August 1968 an industrial dispute was referred to the first industrial tribunal, in the following terms: whether the termination of service of Smt. Sujata Mitra is justified? Whether relief, if any, is she entitled to? Respondent I heard the industrial dispute and made an award dated 20 June 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 an application in this Court in the writ jurisdiction and a rule was issued calling upon respondent 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 19 December1968 dismissed the same and discharge the rule. It is against this order that this appeal is directed. Sri 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 Sri Sen on the facts and are inclined to accept the facts as stated on behalf of the said respondent. But Sri Sen has raised very weighty points of law which we shall new proceed to consider. The principal contention of Sri Sen is based on Section85 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 co -operative society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a society of its managing committee against a paid servant of the society) or of the liquidator of a society shall be referred to the Regular if the parties there to are among the following, namely: (a) the society its managing committee, any post or present officer, agent or servant or the liquidator of the society; or a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of the society: or (b) a surely of a member past member or deceased member of the society, whether such surely is or is not a member of the society; or (c) any other co -operative society or the liquidator of such society. The word 'touching' was deleted by the amounting Act of 1965
(2.) ACCORDING to him, the parties in this case governed by the Bengal Co -operative Societies Act, 1940, and there being a specific provision in the said Act for referring the dispute for adjudication to the Register, Co -operative Societies, the matter could not be referred as a dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act 194, and the order of reference as well as the award made thereon are without jurisdiction and therefore, void.
(3.) AS regard Section as, it may be pointed out that prior to the amending Act of 1965 the word 'touching' appeared in the first line; but this has been replaced by the words 'relating to the affairs'. The said Act is an Act to amend the law relating to the co -operative societies in Bengal. The preamble says that it was passed because it was expedient to make further provision for the formation and working of the co -operative societies, and for the promotion, thrifts, self help and mutual aid among persons of moderate means with needs and interest in common, to the end that better condition of living and better methods pf production and business may there by result. By the amending Act of 1965the words' persons of moderate means' have been replaced by the word 'people.' The preamble is of importance because a point has arisen as to whether the said Act is a special Act and the Industrial Disputes Act is a general Act, or vice -versa. Upon this point it is regretted that a particular amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(viz. Act 86 of 1956), had not been brought to the notice of either the industrial tribunal or the Court below. The principal contest in the Court below was upon the wording of Section 86 of the said Act. The question that was contested was as to whether the dismissal of a paid servants or an employee of a co -operative society could be the subject -matter of a dispute, 'touching' the business of a co -operative society. Upon this point there is a conflict of opinion. Since this question has been deals with in the court below and also argued before us at length I must note the argument, although it will presently be seen that the 1956 amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act will be the decisive factor in the matter. As I have stated above, by the amending Act of 1955 the word 'touching has been' replaced by the words 'relating to the a affairs.' There have been some argument advanced as to the difference in there two expressions. Etymelogically, the word 'touching' seems to have wider meaning than the expressions ' relating to the affairs.' The difference is; however, only one of degree. Besides, at the relevant time, the word 'touching' appeared in Section 86. I will now proceed to deal with cases often before us. The first case to be is one of the Madras High Court -Desereths Row v. Subba Row, Secretary, Co -operative Stores, Ltd. A.I.R. 1923Mad.481. In that case, a dispute arise between P.D. Row and the co -operative stores of Viasagram is regard to sum of money entrusted to the former by the letter, for purchase of certain articles. The stores claimed a balance due after certain adjustment and it was referred to the Register under Section 42(2)(1) of the co -operative Societies Act as applicable to Madras. It was argued that the words 'touching the business of a society' only referred disputes regarding the industrial management of the affairs of the society or disputes in regard to the principle which would regulate the conduct of the business. This contention was not accepted, inter alia, on the ground that in that event disputes between past member inter se or again between persons claiming through past member inter se would never come within its scope. It was held that the words of the section were very wide and a dispute arising out of any particular transaction would not be out side the scope of the section. The next case is one of the Allahabad High Court, Gopi Nath and Anr. v. Ram Nath .The Muttra District Co -operative Bank was one constituted under the Co -operative Societies Act, 1912(Central). The dispute that area was as regard the appointment of a director. The question was whether in report of each a dispute a suit was maintainable so the matter would have to be referred to the Register. It was argued that the word 'business' in the 1912 Act and the rules made thereunder, is confined to money business such as the giving of leans to member stand the settlement of money claims and did not apply to the election of a director. This was negatived. Is was held that the election of an officer was certainly a part of the business of the society, and it was the intention of the Act that such a dispute should be referred to the Register or the arbitrator appointed by him according to the rules framed under the 1912Act.;