Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 43 (KAR)

KONDAPALLI SUBBANNA v. MANAGING DIRECTOR

1989-02-08

K.A.SWAMI

body1989
SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENTS are served and represented. As this petition can be disposed of on a short point it is heard for final disposal. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:a) A writ of certiorari quashing the order vide Annexures-A and E vide Nos. ADM/est/ 85-86 dated 28th Dec. 1985 and vide No. DSK/igl/ MIS. DIS. 3/ 86-87 dated 12. 8. 1986, respectively. b) Any other writ or order appropriate in the circumstances of the case, and c) Award cost of the petition. ( 3 ) ANNEXURE-A dated 28. 12. 1985 is the notice of retirement stating that the petitioner has to retire on 14. 7. 86. Annexure-E is the order dated 12. 8. 86 passed by the second respondent in dispute no. DSK/igl/ MIS. DTS. 3/ 86-87 by which the second respondent has held that the dispute raised by the petitioner is not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was appointed as pump Attender in the service of the Compli co-operative Sugar Factory. Compli. According to the case of the petitioner, he has to retire on 29. 12. 1993. where as according to thc first respondent, he has to retire on 14. 7. 1986. According to the case of the first respondent the daie of birth of the first respondent as entered in the records of the first respondent is 15. 7. 1926, therefore on attaining the age of 60, the petitioner was ordered to retire on 14. 7. 86, Whereas the case of the petitioner is that according to the entry made in the school records, his date of birth is 30-12-1933 and not 15-7-1926, therefore, he is entitled to remain in service till 29. 12. 1993; that his request for correcting the date of birth entered in the service records on the basis of the entry made in the school certificate was not considered, therefore, he raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). ( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent has rejected the dispute on the ground that it is not maintainable as it does not lie under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the act. ( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent has rejected the dispute on the ground that it is not maintainable as it does not lie under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the act. ' ( 6 ) THEREFORE, the point for consideration is whether the 2nd respondent is right in holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner does not lie within the scope of section 70 of the Act. ( 7 ) IT is contended on behalf of the 1st respondent by learned counsel Sri S. V. Sastri and Sri Rajasekharappa learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent, that the relief of declaration as to date of birth does not fall within the scope of section 70 of the Act, as such that relief can only be granted by a civil court; therefore, the 2nd respondent is right in holding that the dispute does not lie within the scope of section 70 (2) (d) of the Act. Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Act reads thus:"70 (2 ). For the purpose of sub.-secton (1) the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely, a) to c) xxxxx xxxxxxx d) any dispute between a co-operative society and its employees or past employees or heirs or legal representatives of a deceased employee, including a dispute regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a co-operative society;" ( 8 ) THE point for consideration is as to whether a determination of the question as to the date on which an employee of a co-operative society attains the age of superannuation falls within the scope, of clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Secton 70 of the Act. If for that purpose the exact date of birth of an employee is required to be determined, it becomes necessary to be gone into; otherwise the very object of creating special jurisdiction and taking away the jurisdiction of civil court over matters coming under the purview of Sec. 70 of the act will be defeated. If for that purpose the exact date of birth of an employee is required to be determined, it becomes necessary to be gone into; otherwise the very object of creating special jurisdiction and taking away the jurisdiction of civil court over matters coming under the purview of Sec. 70 of the act will be defeated. While considering the scope of Section 70 of the Act, it has to be borne in mind that the jurisdiction of a civil court under Section 118 of the Act is taken away in respect of any dispute which is required to be referred- to the Registrar under Section 70 of the Act, Of course section 118 of the Act takes away the jurisdiction of a civil court in respect of other matters with which we are not cocerned in this matter. In addition to that, the Registrar under sub-section (3) of section 70 of the Act is empowered to decide as to the matters which fall under Section 70 of the Act and his decision is final. Therefore, even the matters which do not exactly lie within the scope of Section 70 (1) of the Act can also be brought within Section 70 of the Act if the Registrar considers that such a dispute can be decided under Section 70 of the Act. However, in this case, it is not unnecessary to go to that extent as the age of retirement being one of the conditions of service and if the employee of a co-operative society is tried to be retired before he attains the age of superannuation, such a dispute falls within clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Act and it has to be decided according to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. ( 9 ) THE fact that for the purpose of deciding the question as to the date on which an employee has to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, the Assistant registrar or the Arbitrator, as the case may be, is required to go into the question as to what is the correct date of birth of an employee does not take away the dispute from the purview of Section 70 (2) (d) of the act; in as much as determination of such an issue becomes necessary, rather in other words such an issue is an integral part of the main issue as to the correct date on which an employee attains the age of superannuation. Then necessarily, it is required to be gone into for the purpose of determination of the relief sought for by an employee of a co-operative society. Therefore, it falls within the scope of Section 70 (2) (d) of the act, as otherwise, the jurisdiction cannot at all be effectively exercised and the very object of creating exclusive jurisdiction by taking away the jurisdiction of civil court will be defeated. Special jurisdiction is created and the regular jurisdiction of a Civil court is taken away so that an aggrieved party can get relief without undue delay. Therefore, the provisions contained in section 70 have to be liberally construed and wide meaning has to be assigned so that a dispute arising between a co-operative society and its employee and Other persons falling under the provisions of Section 70 of the Act can be determined as per the provisions of the Act. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the point raised for determination is answered in the negative. In view of the conclusion reached by me, the petition is entitled to succeed. It is accordingly allowed. The order dated 12. 8. 1986 passed by the 2nd respondent in dispute No. DSK/igl/mis. DIS. 3/86 87 (Annexure-E) is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed either to decide the dispute himself or deal with it in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 71 of the Act. Sri D. R. Rajasekharappa, learned High court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent within six weeks. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .