JUDGMENT S.M Guha. J. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 29th March 1980 passed by Sm. C. Biswas, the learned Munsif, Additional Court. Asansol in Title Suit No. 19 of 1977-subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 25 of 1979 holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society duly registered under the provisions of Bengal Co-operative Societies Act 1940, repealed and replaced by the W.B Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 the plaintiffs-opposite parties were the employees of the petitioner-whose service was governed by the terms and conditions of employment as contained in their respective contract of service. Pursuant to the decision of the Board of Administrators in a meeting held on 21st December 1976, the Executive Officer of the petitioner served the notices of retrenchment on the Opposite parties on or about 21st January, 1977, Thereafter they instituted the suit mentioned above for a declaration that the order of retrenchment is a colourable exercise of power and the termination of the service of the Opposite parties is illegal, wrongful, void and inoperative - with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from giving any effect to the said orders of retrenchment. 3. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the suit and questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsif holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit the petitioner has come in revision. 4. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the contract of service cannot he specifically performed, as the relationship between the parties is that of master and servant The remedy of the parries, if any, lies in damages. 5. As to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court it is contended that the question of retrenchment is a dispute within the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and as such under S. 2A read with Second Schedule of the Act the forum is the Labour Courts. Reliance is placed on the decision' of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of UP State Warehousing Corpn. Reliance is placed on the decision' of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of UP State Warehousing Corpn. Lucknow v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1244 It is held therein that normally a contract of personal service will not be enforced by an order for specific performance nor will it be open for a servant to refuse to accept the repudiation of a contract of service by his master and say that the contract has never been terminated, The remedy of the employee is a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal breach of contract The exceptions to the normal rule that no declaration to enforce a contract of personal service will be granted are: (1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311. (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under Industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals (3) A statutory body when it bas acted in bleach of a mandatory obligation, imposed by statute. 6. Next it is contended that co-operative Societies cannot be taken to be a statutory body, W.B. Co-operative Societies Act 1973 was passed to consolidate and amend the law relating to Co-operative Societies in West Bengal. Under the provisions of this Act for settlement of disputes the disputes are to be referred to the Registrar, but under S. 86(i) proviso (e) nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any dispute (a) regarding disciplinary action taken by a Society or its Managing Committee against its paid employees. 7. So according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 Labour Court is the only forum to entertain a dispute of this nature. According to S. 2(j) "industry" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employees and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen, and "industrial dispute" under S.2(k) means any dispute or difference between employers and employees, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or With the conditions of labour, of any person. 8. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under S.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was discussed by the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court. The principles therein were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. v. Municipal Committee, Dhamangaon, reported in AIR 1966 SC 249 . 8. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under S.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was discussed by the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court. The principles therein were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. v. Municipal Committee, Dhamangaon, reported in AIR 1966 SC 249 . The principles enunciated are to be found in these tams: “Under S. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A statute, therefore, expressly or by necessary implication, can bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of a particular matter. The mere conferment of special jurisdiction on a tribunal in respect of the said matter does not in itself exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts. The statute may specifically provide for outing the jurisdiction of Civil Courts even if there was no such specific exclusion, if it creates a liability not existing before and gives a special and particular remedy for the aggrieved party. The remedy provided by it must be followed. The same principle would apply if the statute bad provided for the particular forum in which the same remedy could be had. Even in such cases, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not completely ousted. A suit in a Civil Court will always lie to question the order of a tribunal created by a statute, even if its order is, expressly or by necessary implication made final, if the said tribunal abuses its power or does not act under the Act but in violation of its provisions”. 9. The Supreme Court again had occasion to consider the jurisdiction of Civil Court in relation to industrial disputes in the cases of The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shntaram Wadke & Ors. and Automatic Electric Pvt. Ltd. v. Engineering Mozdoor Sabha & Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 2238 . The principles applicable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to an industrial dispute were enumerated at p 2251 of the report as follows :- (1) If the dispute is not industrial dispute nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act the remedy lies only in the Civil Court. The principles applicable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to an industrial dispute were enumerated at p 2251 of the report as follows :- (1) If the dispute is not industrial dispute nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act the remedy lies only in the Civil Court. (2) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy. (3) If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act. (4) If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either 33C or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be. Their Lordships then continue to add:-"We may. however, in relation to principle 2, stated above hasten to add that there will hardly be a dispute which will be an industrial dispute within the meaning of S. 2(k) of the Act and yet will be one arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law only and not under the Act Such a contingency for example, may arise in regard to the dismissal of an unsponsored workman which in view of the provision of law contained in S. 2A of the Act will be an industrial dispute even though it may otherwise be an individual dispute. Civil Courts, therefore, will have hardly an occasion to deal with the type of cases falling under principle 2, cases of industrial disputes by and large, almost invariably are bound to be covered by principle 3 stated above. 10. Applying the principles stated above to the facts of the instant case, it, is clear what the plaintiffs-opposite parties wanted was a declaration that the orders of retrenchment are illegal, void etc. in view of the terms and conditions of employment as contained in their respective contract of service. 10. Applying the principles stated above to the facts of the instant case, it, is clear what the plaintiffs-opposite parties wanted was a declaration that the orders of retrenchment are illegal, void etc. in view of the terms and conditions of employment as contained in their respective contract of service. Such a dispute will Come within the purview of S. 2A of the Act. So the individual dispute, under the Act turns into an industrial dispute. 11. Moreover, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1970 SC 1244 the Civil Court is not competent to pass a decree in a suit of this nature. The position of course, would have been otherwise, had there been a claim for damages for wrongful retrenchment. 12. In this view of the matter, disagreeing with the learned Munsif I would hold that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit. The rule is accordingly made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.