MORINDA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Vs. MORINDA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS WORKERS UNION REGISTERED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') impugning she judgment and decree dated 8.4.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar holding that issuance of statutory notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act') is not required because the subject matter of the suit claiming dearness allowance on the wages plus fixed allowance in accordance with para 317(ii) of the Third Wage Board report cannot be said to be a dispute touching the business of the society. The judgment and decree dated 30.1.1996 passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been reversed whereby the Civil Judge has dismissed the suit for want of service of notice under Section 79 of the Act.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No.43 of 22.2.1995 seeking declaration to the effect that members of the plaintiff-respondent union were entitled to the benefit of Variable Dearness Allowance (for brevity, VDA') of basic wages plus fixed allowance in accordance with paragraph 317(ii) of the Third Wage Board report with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from withdrawing the payment of VDA on the interim fixed amount of Rs. 150/- being paid to the members of the plaintiff-respondent union. It has been claimed that the plaintiff-respondent is a registered union and is competent to sue and be sued as it has a legal identity. Shri Gurmit Singh has been authorised to file the suit and do all necessary acts for that purpose. It is further claimed that Punjab State Confederation of Co-operative Sugar Mills limited vide letter dated 1.11.1993 has accorded sanction for extending the benefit of interim relief. The defendant-appellant has paid VDA to the members of the plaintiff-respondent union on the interim relief i.e. fixed allowance of Rs. 150/- per month in accordance with paragraph 317 sub-para 4(ii) of the Third Wage Board recommendations. The defendant-appellant vide its letter dated 8.2.1995 has clarified that members of the plaintiff-respondent union were not entitled to VDA on the fixed allowance of Rs. 150/-and they would not be allowed VDA in future. The plaintiff-respondent union represented on 30.1.1995 claiming the aforementioned benefit. It was further clarified that the members of the plaintiff-respondent union were ready to accept the policy on the same pattern as is followed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh where they have raised the value of one point rise in index from Rs. 1.65 to Rs. 2/-. A further plea was set up that before withdrawing the benefit of Rs. 150/-, opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the plaintiff-respondent and the recommendations of the Third Wage Board were binding.

(3.) Defendants-appellant opposed the suit controverting assertions made in the plaint and has raised preliminary objection asserting that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff-respondent has no locus standi to file such a suit. It was further asserted that no notice under Section 79 of the Act has been issued before filing of the suit. A replication was also filed by the plaintiff-respondent reiterating the claim made in the plaint. The trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues;-