(1.) The appeal is against the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in O. P. No. 363 of 1973 reported m 1975 Ker LT 460. In view of the importance of the question raised the matter was directed to be placed before a Full Bench. The learned judge dismissed the writ petition to quash Ext. P1 Award of the registrar, confirmed on appeal by Ext. P2 order of the Co-operative Appellate tribunal. The question relates to a dispute as to the seniority and promotion as between the writ petitioner-appellant and the 4th Respondent. The Committee of the Kuttipuram Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (referred to for short as the society) promoted the appellant as Assistant Accountant on 1-5-1969. The 4th respondent thereupon submitted a petition to the Committee complaining against the said promotion. The Committee by an order referred to in Ext. P1 as ext Clause referred the matter to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies. The Deputy Registrar after considering the services and qualifications of the two candidates gave his opinion (referred to in Exts. P1 as C2) that the 4th Respondent was to be promoted in preference to the appellant. In pursuance of this opinion, the Committee reverted the appellant and promoted the 4th Respondent on 1-1-1970. The appellant put in a petition to the committee for reconsideration. The Committee re-considered and created a fresh post for the appellant and gave seniority to the appellant. The matter went up again before the Deputy Registrar for re-consideration. After considering the matter in detail and on the merits, the Deputy Registrar passed ext. PI, order by which he ordered that the Resolution of the Committee dated 10-4-1970 be rescinded and the direction Ext. C2 upheld. He also ordered that the 4th respondent is senior in rank to the appellant. This order was confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal in Ext. P2 order. The appellant's writ petition was to quash these orders.
(2.) Before the learned Judge the main question that was canvassed was that the jurisdiction of the Registrar to arbitrate under Section 99, in regard to the matter referred, was not attracted, and therefore had not been properly invoked. The question depends upon the provisions of the Co-operative societies Act. Section 2 (i) of the Act and Section 69 (c) read:
(3.) The jurisdiction of the Registrar in regard to arbitration under the Cooperative societies Act, having been thus sketched by the decisions of this court, the question is whether, on the facts disclosed in this case, the Registrar had jurisdiction or not. The learned Judge found jurisdiction in the Registrar on the addition of the word 'establishments' in the definition of the word 'dispute', which we have extracted earlier. In so finding the learned Judge has lost sight of the important principle stated by the decisions to which we have just made reference, that the jurisdiction of the Registrar is conterminous with the jurisdiction of the' ordinary civil courts. It is beyond dispute that no rules or bye-laws regulating seniority and promotion as between the appellant and the 4th Respondent, or in respect of the employees of the Co-operative Society have been framed. In the absence of such rules, regulations or bye-lays, a dispute as to seniority or promotion cannot be entertained or made the subject of litigation in a civil court. The provisions of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Specific relief Act and the inability to grant the relief of reinstatement would exclude them from the purview of the ordinary civil courts, as stated in the decisions already noticed. Ex hypothesi, such a dispute cannot be a subject-matter of arbitration by the Registrar.