S. C. AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ petitions raise common questions for determination and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE petitioner in both these writ petitions is Bhilwara Sahkari Upbhokta wholesale Bhandar (hereinafter referred to as the 'sahkari Bhandar' ). It is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and is running a wholesale Bhandar at Bhilwara. Shyamlal, respondent No. 2 in civil writ petition No. 156/77, was appointed as Assistant Accountant-cum-clerk in the Sahkari Bhandar with effect from June 30, 1973. It is alleged that on inspection it was found that the said respondent had misappropriated money of the Sahkari Bhandar during the year 1974-75 and the matter was brought to the notice of the Board of Directors of the Sahkari Bhandar by the Executive Officer of the Sahkari Bhandar and it was also brought to the notice of the said respondent by letter dated 18th March 1975 and thereupon the said respondent in his letter dated 19th March, 1975, admitted his fault and also made good the loss which was suffered by the Sahkari Bhandar. It is further alleged that after a further enquiry into the matter a charge sheet was served on respondent No. 2 on December 16, 1975 and the said respondent submitted bis reply to the said charge sheet on December 23, 1975. THE matter was thereafter discussed before the Board of Directors of the Sahkari Bhandar and it was decided that respondent No. 2 may be removed from service without any stigma and, in pursuance of the aforesaid decision, an order dated December 30, 1975 was passed by the Executive Officer of the Sahkari Bhandar whereby the services of respodent No. 2 were terminated with effect from December 31. 1975. THE reason that was given in the said order was insufficiency of work and financial condition of the Sahkari Bhandar. On February 9, 1976 respondent No. 2 submitted an application under section 28a of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "shops and Commercial Establishment Act") before the Prescribed Authority under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (hereinafter referred to as the "prescribed Authority" ). THE Prescribed Authority by its order dated March 22, 1977 allowed the said application of respondent No 2 and held that the termination of the services of respondent No 2 by the Executive Officer of the Sahkari Bhandar was in contravention of the rules and the Proscribed. Authority therefore, set aside the order dated December 30, 1975 with regard to the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 and directed that respondent No. 2 may be re-instated in service from December 30,1975, and respondent No. 2 was entitled to payment of back wages from December 30, 1975. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated March 22, 1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the Sahkari Bhandar has filed civil writ petition No. 156/77. Bhupalsingh, respondent No. 2 in civil Writ petition No. 157/77, entered, the service of the Sahkari Bhandar on February 25. 1968 and during, the period from July 1,1972 to February 2. 1975 he was working as Accountant with the Sahkri Bhandar. It is alleged that during the course of inspection it was found that the said respondent had committed embezzlement of the funds of the Sahakari Bhandar and had also committed other irregularities while working as Accountant and a Committee was constituted to enquire into the matter. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2 was also given a notice to appear before the said Committee to place his defence. It is also alleged that after taking into consideration the report submitted by the Enquiry Committee and after giving opportunity to respondent No. 2 to make his submissions, about! the charges levelled against him. the Board of Directors of the Sahkari Bhandar on June 18,1976 decided to remove respondent No. 2 from service and on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Board of Directors, the Executive Officer of the Sahkari Bhandar passed an order dated June 22, 1976 whereby the services of respondent No. 2 was terminated with immediate effect on June 30, 1976. Respondent No. 2 submitted an application under section 28a of the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act before the Prescribed Authority and by order dated March 22, 1977 the Prescribed Authority allowed the said application and set aside the order dated June 22, 1976 terminating the services of respondent No. 2 and directed that respondent No. 2 be re-instated in service with full back wages with effect from June 22,1976. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Prescribed Authority the Sahkari Bhandar has filed civil writ petition No. 157/77. I have heard Shri M C. Bhoot the learned counsel for the Sahkari Bhandar in both the writ petitions and Shri M. L. Kala the learned counsel for the respondent employees Shyamlal and Bhupal Singh. The first contention urged by Shri Bhoot was that in view of the express provisions contained in section 75 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted by the respondent employees under Section 28a of the Act and all the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority including the orders dated March 22,1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority were without jurisdiction. Section 75 of the Act provides as under:- - "75. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, in any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society arises- (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, or (d) between the society and any other co-operative society, or (e) between the society and the surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had transaction under section 66, whether such a surety is or is not a member of a society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely: - (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society. (3) If any question arises whether dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. "
(3.) A perusal of section 75 shows that under sub-section (1) disputes referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of the said sub-section, provided they are disputes touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society, are required to be referred to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for decision and the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain any suit or the proceeding in respect of such dispute has been expressly barred. By sub-section (2) the disputes referred to in clauses (a) to. (e) of that sub-section are, by statutory fiction, deemed to be disputes touching the, constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society. Sub-section (3) gives finality to the decision of the Registrar of co-operative societies on the question whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under section 75 is a dispute touching thee constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society. In the present cases disputes had arison between the Sahkari Bhandar and the respondent employees on account of the termination of the services of the said employees. A dispute between a co-operative society and its employees falls in clause (c) of sub-section (1) and the disputes between the Sahkari Bhandar and the respondent employees would be covered by sub-section (1) of section 75 if the said disputes can be said to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of the Sahkari Bhandar. The said disputes do not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (2) and, therefore, they cannot be treated as disputes touching the constitution, management or business of the Sahkari Bhandar by virtue of the statutory fiction created by sub-section (2 ). Hence it will be necessary to determine whether the aforesaid disputes between the Sahkari Bhandar and the respondent employees relating to the legality of the orders terminating the services of those employees can be regarded as disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of the Sahkari Bhandar. Shri Bhoot does not contend the said disputes can be regarded as touching the constitution of the Sahkari Bhandar, but he has submitted that the said disputes are disputes touching the management of the Sahkari Bhandar as well as disputes touching the business of the Sahkari Bhandar. I will first take up the question whether the aforesaid disputes can be regarded as disputes touching the business of the Sahkari Bhandar. The expression "touching the business of a co-operative society" is found in similar provisions enacted in other States and the said expression has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a number of cases. ;