JAGDISH SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference to a larger bench made by Chadha, J. by his order of 22nd March, 1984. The Petitioner in course of his employment with respondent No. 3 Bank was given a substantive rank of Deputy Manager on Feb. 3, 1980. Later on disciplinary proceedings were started against the petitioner. He was given a charge-sheet on 29th December, 1980, and an enquiry was held and ultimately the petitioner was informed on 27th January, 1981 that his services had been terminated as a result of disciplinary proceedings with immediate effect. His appeal to the Board of Directors also failed.

(2.) The petitioner, therefore, moved an application under Section 60 of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (to be called Delhi Act) seeking to raise a dispute about the termination of his services. The Deputy Registrar by his order dated 28th January 1982 held that since petitioner was a paid employee of the bank working as a Deputy General Manager he is not permitted to raise a dispute under Section 60 of the Delhi Act and the order of termination of services of the petitioner is nothing but disciplinary action taken by the bank against its employee. He, therefore, without going into the merits of the case held that the application for arbitration under Section 60 was not maintainable. The petitioner therefore, came to this Court by means of writ petition. Before the learned Single Judge a reference was made to Chander Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. and another v. Ashok Ohri : AIR 1976 (Delhi) P. 299 (1) wherein Avadh Behari, J. has held that the legislature as ousted Jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in respect of disputes which are specified in sub-section (2) and to which the parties must be such as are mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 60. The learned Judge was of the view that what is a dispute within Delhi Act is defined in sub-section (2) of Section 60 of the Delhi Act and it is only if dispute is covered by three categories mentioned in that sub-section that the matter could be called a disputes touching the constitution, management and business of a society. He also held that definition given in sub-section (2) is exhaustive.

(3.) As categories mentioned in sub-s. (2) of Section 60 of the Act does not mention of disputes regarding the termination of the services of an employee, the claim of the petitioner would be straightaway barred on the judgment of Avadh Behari, J. Chadha, J. however, was not inclined to agree with it and that is why he referred this matter to the larger Bench.