LexGUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. versus P. R. MANDED AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• 1023 GUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. . v. P. R. MANDED AND ORS. January 23, 1979 [R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J New piea, entertainments of-Not permissible at the appellate level. Bombay Co-op<rative Sociea,. Act, 1925, (Bombay Act Vll of 1925) Section 54 and Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961...:.... Scope of the words "any dispute touching the business of the society" Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act 11 of 1947) Section 2(4) notifi- cation under, read with s. 166(1) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, effect of. The- appellant Bank was a. society registered under the Bombay Co-opera- tive Societies Act, 1925 and with the coming into force ftom May 1, 1962 of the Gujtairat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, it came to be governed by A B c the said Act. By Notification No. BIR-1362·5·H dated March 2, 1963, the Government of Gujarat directed under s. 2(4) of the Bombay Industrial Rela".' D lions Act, 1946 (Bombay Act 11 of 1947) that ell the provisions of the said Act shall apply with effect from March 15, 1963 to the business of banking by Ccroperative Banks in the Saurashtra and Kutch areas of the State, regis~ tered and deemed to be registered under the Gujarat Co-operativ'e Societies, Act, 1961. The second respondent, Babu Bhai Negracha who was working as am E additional supervisor in the Dasada Branch of the appellant Bank and whose se:r:vices were terminated by an order dated February 21, 1962, by giving him· one month's pay in lieu of notice under Staff RegQ]ation No. 15, filed an applic:ition in the Utbour Court Rajkot, alleging that his services had been illegally and maliciously terminated as an act of victimisation on account of ,.ilr·-- his trade union activities and praying for setting aside the -order of his termina· tion of service and for reinstatement with full back wages. F The Labour Court by its order dated June 11, 1963, over·ruled the preli· mi nary objection raised by the appellant Bank, namely, that "the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 Under which the application Was made by the respondent was not applicable to its ca:se, as it was a co.operative society goVerned by the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, unde'r which only the Reg5trar or his nominee had jurisdiction to decide the dispute, ·a·nd the Labour G Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application". The appellant Bank's writ petition challenging the said order of the Labour Court OOs dismissed by the Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated August 25, 1967 . Dismissing the appeal by certific·ate, the Court HELD : 1. No new plea can be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court, as a matter of right. In the instant case, the new plea that • 1the appellant is not doing banking business" \V3S not enterta.ined for the reasons 9-119SCIJ79 H • • ___ ,__ 1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 S.C.R. A namely (i)-it was much too belated; (ii) it stood in direct contradiction· to the position taken by the appellant in i~ \\'Tit petition and the affidavit in · support thereof in the High Court wherein it had been clearly admitted tb:i.t "the society i~ engaged 'in the business of ·banking" and (iii) it was not a purely legal _plea but a mixed plea of law and fact and could not be deter- n1incd on the basis of material already on the record. [1027 F-01 B 1. 1be e.xpression "any dispute'' referred to in Section 54 of the Bombav c D E IF II Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and in Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperativ~ Societies Act, does not cover a dispute of the kind raised by respondent 2 .;1gainst the appellant-bank. [1034 C] (a) It is clea.r from the object and the schcn1e of th'e AcL'i of 1925 anil J.961 that the legis-laiurc never intended lo give such a wide scope to the 'expression "any dispute" so as to cover ~u classes of disputes whatever be their nature a11 the prefix "any" to "dispute" appears to give. The tern1 "dispute" means a controversy ha.ving both positive and negati\·e aspects. Jt ·postulates the .assertion of a claim by one party and its denial by the other. [1031 C-Dl (b) The expression "any dispute"' has not been defined in the Acts of 1925 and 1961. This expression has been used in a narrower scn.'ie limited t.J confested claims of a civil nature, which could have been decided by civil or revenue
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.