Cooperative society termination dispute held to be an industrial matter, outside Registrar jurisdiction and within Labour Court control.

A discharged cooperative society employee's claim for reinstatement with back wages was held not to be a dispute referable to the Registrar or nominee under the cooperative societies law, because the statutory expression "any dispute" was confined to civil disputes ordinarily triable by civil courts. The Court also held that such a termination dispute did not touch the society's "business" or "management"; those words were read as referring to the society's commercial activity, not service conditions or wrongful discharge. The dispute was therefore an industrial dispute within labour law, and the Labour Court retained jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a dispute raised by a discharged servant of a cooperative society seeking reinstatement with back wages is a dispute that can be referred to the Registrar or his nominee under the cooperative societies law. (ii) Whether such a dispute is one touching the business or management of the society within the meaning of the relevant cooperative societies provisions so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.

Issue (i): Whether a dispute raised by a discharged servant of a cooperative society seeking reinstatement with back wages is a dispute that can be referred to the Registrar or his nominee under the cooperative societies law.

Analysis: The expression "any dispute" in the cooperative societies provisions was construed in its setting and scheme as confined to disputes of a civil nature that could ordinarily be decided by civil courts, with the Registrar functioning as a substitute forum for such disputes. The limitation structure, the preliminary jurisdictional inquiry, and the bar only against civil and revenue courts showed that the legislature did not intend to include industrial disputes incapable of adjudication by a civil court or by the Registrar in the statutory scheme of compulsory arbitration.

Conclusion: The dispute was not one that could be referred to or determined by the Registrar or his nominee.

Issue (ii): Whether such a dispute is one touching the business or management of the society within the meaning of the relevant cooperative societies provisions so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.

Analysis: The phrase "business of the society" was held to mean the actual trading or commercial activity of the society, and not matters relating to service conditions of employees. The added reference to "management" did not enlarge the provision so as to include disputes about termination, reinstatement, or back wages. A dispute of victimisation and wrongful discharge concerns industrial rights under labour legislation, and the special law governing industrial disputes prevails over the general cooperative societies law where the former is clearly applicable.

Conclusion: The dispute did not touch the business or management of the society and fell within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

Final Conclusion: The cooperative societies forum had no jurisdiction over the employee's termination dispute, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute by a society employee challenging discharge and seeking reinstatement with back wages is an industrial dispute, not a civil dispute touching the business or management of the society, and therefore lies outside the Registrar's jurisdiction under the cooperative societies law.

---