Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-These revision petitions have been filed by the Rajasthan Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rajsamand challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Rajsamand on 21.04.2003 rejecting the application filed by petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. Since, all the three revision petitions involve common question of law and facts, the same are decided by common order. 2. According to the petitioner, a civil suit for perpetual injunction was filed against the defendant-petitioner by the plaintiff-non-petitioners alleging that the plaintiffs are agents of the petitioner Bank and they were collecting premium amounts from the members of the public at large/consumers and depositing the same with the Bank. The plaintiffs asserted that they were authorised agents of the Bank since 1977 and worked sincerely and there is no complaint against them. They also made reference to the letter of the Bank dated 31.07.1997 whereunder the Bank issued stipulations to the agents. In the said letter, it was pointed out that if it is found that any agent was committing any kind of misappropriation then his agency would be liable to be terminated and every agency shall deposit the diary at the end of the month so that the accrued commission may be paid to him. In the plaint, the plaintiffs alleged that they were being paid commission at the rate of 3 percent which was continued at the same rate upto 31st March, 1999 but thereafter the rate of commission was reduced to 2 per cent against which the agents protested and the said rate of commission was again raised to 2.5 per cent. The plaintiffs agitated it as their legal right and filed the suit on 01.04.2002. The plaintiffs alleged that the Bank has threatened them to terminate their agencies if they would not withdraw the suit and they have not been paid commission for the month of April. In the suit, the plaintiffs sought relief of payment of commission at the rate of 3 per cent as they were getting previously. They alleged that due to pendency of suit, they were entitled to get commission at least at the rate of 2.25 per cent. 3. In the suit, the plaintiffs sought relief of payment of commission at the rate of 3 per cent as they were getting previously. They alleged that due to pendency of suit, they were entitled to get commission at least at the rate of 2.25 per cent. 3. The plaintiff-agents set up case that they fall within the definition of workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and they apprehend that their respective agency which is the source of their livelihood may be terminated as the defendant Bank had withheld their commission for the month of April and was further preventing them from opening new accounts under the Janata Daily Deposit Scheme and as such the same is going to affect their legitimate rights and they would suffer injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The plaintiffs thus pleaded that the cause of action arose in April when they were not paid the commission. The plaintiffs, therefore, sought relief of perpetual injunction and a direction to the defendant Bank that commission may be paid to the plaintiffs at the rate of 2.5 per cent or 3 per cent, as the defendant Bank may deem just and proper. 4. In the said suit, the defendant Bank moved application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC on the ground that the defendant Bank is registered Co-operative Society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965; the plaintiffs are claiming themselves workmen as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the suit of perpetual injunction is based on their alleged claim of servant and master relationship. In the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC the defendant Bank stated that there is an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 75, Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and when remedy is available under Section 75, suit before the civil Court is barred under Section 137 of the Act of 1965. The plaintiffs filed reply to the said application moved by the defendant Bank. In their reply to the application, the plaintiffs pleaded that the matter sought to be agitated by them does not fall within the periphery of Section 75 of the Act of 1965 and being bank-depositors, as per the apex Court decision, they are workmen. 5. The plaintiffs filed reply to the said application moved by the defendant Bank. In their reply to the application, the plaintiffs pleaded that the matter sought to be agitated by them does not fall within the periphery of Section 75 of the Act of 1965 and being bank-depositors, as per the apex Court decision, they are workmen. 5. The trial Court in its order dated 21.04.2003 elaborately discussed the contentions raised by the applicant Bank in its application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and reached conclusion that the dispute in between the parties does not relate to organisation, business and management of the bank society and, therefore, provisions of Section 75(2) of the Act of 1965 would not be attracted and rejected the application. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 7. Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel Mr. M.R. Singhvi contended that as per the saving of the plaintiff-respondents they claimed servant and master relationship and further claimed to be workmen and, therefore, the trial Court gravely erred in not appreciating the fact that the plaintiffs while raising dispute regarding service conditions cannot escape the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1965. Mr. Singhvi urged that the dispute of the nature raised by the plaintiffs on their own claims touches the management of the co-operative society and, therefore, the trial Court seriously erred in dismissing the application of the defendant Bank moved under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. In support of his argument, Mr. Singhvi heavily placed reliance on Sawaimadhopur Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. vs. Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr., 1990 (1) WLN 437. Mr. Singhvi contended that if any dispute arises in between the management and employees the remedy under Section 75 of the Act of 1965 can be invoked and since the plaintiffs themselves pleaded the dispute claiming to be workmen employed by the society Bank the bar under Section 137 of the Code of Civil Procedure would come to operate against them in the way of filing suit in the civil Court. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned order Mr. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned order Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the suit for perpetual injunction was with regard to payment of commission to the plaintiff agents of the Bank and since the defendant Bank was threatening the plaintiffs with consequences if the earlier suit was not withdrawn and the plaintiffs were being prevented from operating their agencies by opening new accounts the relief was rightly claimed by way of suit. 9. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs claimed master and servant relationship while pleading themselves to be workmen seeking relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant Bank. As regards Bank agents and deposit collectors, it is now trite that deposit collectors are workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It may be noted that though the plaintiffs cannot be equated as employees on the regular establishment of the defendant Bank yet they are wage earners who have been engaged for promoting the business of the Bank. The nature and the entire scheme of engagement of the agents and deposit collectors manifestly reveals that their function touches the management of the society. In that view of the matter, the dispute as raised by the plaintiffs in the suit falls under the scope of Section 75 of the Act of 1965 entertainable by the authority so empowered to hear and decide the dispute under the Act. The trial Court has, therefore, seriously erred in rejecting the application of the defendant Bank under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in not appreciating the bar operative under Section 137 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. As a result of the aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.04.2003 is set aside and the application filed by the defendant Bank under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC is ordered to be allowed. Consequently, the suit proceedings pending in the trial Court stands quashed, with liberty to the respondents to approach appropriate authority in accordance with law for resolution of their dispute.