RAMASHANKAR TEWARI Vs. GOPAL BANERJEE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a Co -operative Society at Jamshedpur registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co -operative Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935), hereinafter called the Act, the name of which is the Tisco General Co -operative Credit Society Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Society), respondent no. 9 in this writ application. On the 3rd of June, 1968 an advertisement was issued, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ application, inviting applications for the post of an Accountant for the Society. The applicant, according to the advertisement, was required to possess an M. Com. degree and must have previous experience in Society works. In response to this advertisement, Shri Ramashankar Tewari, the sole petitioner in this writ application, filed an application on 14.6.68 (Annexure 2). He was called for interview on 1.7.68 and selected for the post. An appointment letter dated 2.7.68 (Annexure 3) was issued to him intimating to him that he had been temporarily appointed Accountant of the Society "for six months on probationary basis, likely to be made permanent on satisfactory service". The petitioner joined the post on 4.7.68. He received a letter dated the 30th December, 1968 (Annexure 4) from the Chairman of the Society stating that his appointment to the post of Accountant from the 4th July, 1968 had been held irregular by the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Jamshedpur, who is respondent no. 10 in this writ application, in a court judgment and the Committee of Management of the Society had been directed by him to re -advertise the said post in order to select a permanent incumbent. The petitioner was asked to put in a further application in response to the second advertisement made, and the tenure of his current employment was extended upto the 31st January, 1969. According to the petitioner's case, when he obtained a copy of the judgment of the Assistant Registrar passed on 17.10.68 (Annexure 5) he found that unauthorisedly and illegally he had annulled the appointment and even without giving him an opportunity of having his say in the matter. In pursuance of the direction given by the Assistant Registrar a second advertisement was issued on 30.12.68 (Annexure 6). The petitioner has come up to this Court and prayed in express language to quash the termination of his service made by respondent no. 9 by Annexure 4 dated 30.12.68 and to quash the advertisement made on 30.12.68 (Annexure 6). During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner asked us to quash the order of the Assistant Registrar (Annexure 5) as it was without jurisdiction given in a case which could not be a matter of reference to him under Sec. 48 of the Act as also on the ground that the order was made in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not noticed in the case.

(2.) In support of his contention, learned counsel put forward the argument that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (1) Deccan Merchants Co -operative Bank Ltd. V. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain ( : A.I.R. 1969 SC 1320) the dispute which was referred to respondent no. 10 could not be a dispute "touching the business of a registered society" within the meaning of Sec. 48(1) of the Act and that it was not a dispute between a member and the Society within the meaning of Clause (b) of Sub -section (1).

(3.) In the Supreme Court case referred to above, the expression "touching the business of the society" occurring in Sec. 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co -operative Societies Act, 1960 came up for consideration. In view of the enumeration of certain types of dispute in the said sub -section a narrower meaning was given to the expression "touching the business of the society." It is to be pointed out that the disputes enumerated in the said sub -section are (i) touching the constitution of a society, (ii) touching the election of the office bearers, (iii) touching conduct of general meetings, (iv) touching the management of a society and (v) touching the business of a society. In such a situation in the context of the provision engrafted in Sec. 91(1), it was held that the word 'business' did not mean affairs of society because election of office bearers, conduct of general meetings and management of a society would be treated as affairs of a society. The word 'business' was held to have been used in narrower sense and it meant the actual trading or other similar business activity of society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act, the Rules and the Bye -laws. But in our Act such disputes are not enumerated. Two of the disputes for the purposes of clarification or inclusion in the term 'dispute' have been indicated in Explanations (1) and (2) appended to Sub -section (1) of Sec. 48, otherwise the general words in the main Sub -section (1) are;