TRIVANDRUM CO OPERATIVE DISTRICT WHOLESALE SOCIETY Vs. DY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Trivandrum Cooperative District Wholesale Society Ltd. registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, for short the Act. The appellant sought setting aside the two awards Exts. P1 and P2 passed by the first respondent purporting to act under S.69 of the Act as well as the appellate decision by the Kerala Cooperative Tribunal, Trivandrum, the second respondent (Ext, P3). The award Ext. P1 was passed on the complaint of respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 that their services had been wrongly terminated by the appellant. The award Ext. P2 related to the same matter. The appellant had claimed certain amounts from each of the respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 on the ground that they bad falsified accounts and had committed misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. This claim of the appellant had been rejected. The appeal taken by the appellant before the second respondent the Cooperative Tribunal was dismissed by Ext. P3.

(2.) The learned Judge who heard the original petition dismissed it by a short judgment reading as follows:-

(3.) The appellant had taken the incontention in the original petition that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to decide the questions that arose before the first respondent on the "plaints" that were filed before the first respondent. The contention was that the disputes that could be settled under S.69 of the Act must relate to a matter touching the business, constitution, establishment or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation. This contention was elaborated by saying that the matter in dispute between the appellant and the respondents 3 onwards was not one which could be the subject of litigation in ordinary civil courts, that the disputes in essence and in substance were industrial disputes. Such a contention had not been taken before the first respondent. In fact the appellant also had invited the decision of the first respondent by the plaint that it filed. It is averred in the original petition that such a contention was raised before the Tribunal, the second respondent; but this also does not appear from the records and the point was not elaborated at the time of arguments. The Tribunal did not consider the question. In the original petition the point has been taken; but the learned judge has not dealt with it. The only point urged before us was the lack of jurisdiction of the first respondent to deal with the disputes that arose.