Appeals Nos 2093 and 2094 of 1968
Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 5 1968 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos 2339 and 2742 of 1968
C B Agarwala K Srinivasa Murthy B P Singh and Naunit Lal for the appellants in both the appeals
A section R Chari M K Ramamurthi section Pappu Madan Mohan 207 A J
Ramamurthi Vineet Kumar P section Khera and Bindra Thakur for respondent No 2 in both the appeals The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava J An industrial dispute arose between 25 Co operative Central Banks in the State of Andhra Pradesh and their workmen represented by the Andhra Pradesh Bank Em ployees Federation Hyderabad which was referred by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Industrial Tribunal Hyderabad under section 101 d of the No 14 of 1947
The subject matter of the dispute was divided into three issues
The first issue comprised a number of service conditions viz 1 Salary Scales and Adjustments 2 Dearness Allowance 3 Special Allowances 4 other Allowances 5 Uniforms and Washing Allowances for subordinate staff 6 Conveyance Charges 7 Provident Fund and Gratuity 8 Leave Rules 9 Joining Time on Transfer 1 Rules relating to departmental enquiry against employees for misconduct 11 Probationary Period and Confirmation 12 Working Hours and Overtime Allowance 13 Age of Retirement 14 Security 15 Common Good Fund 16 Service Conditions and 17 Promotions
The second and the third issues both related to the question whether the transfers of some employees of two of the Banks The Vijayawada Co operative Central Bank Ltd Vijayawada and The Vizianagaram Co operative Central Bank Ltd Vizianagaram were justified and if not to what reliefs were the employees entitled
Before the Industrial Tribunal one of the grounds raised on behalf of the Banks was that the reference of the disputes to the Tribunal was invalid because such disputes were required to be referred for decision to the Registrar of the Co operative Societies under section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act No 7 of 1964 hereinafter referred to as the Act  and the effect of the provisions of the Act was to exclude the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunals to deal with the same disputes under the 
Various other pleas were also taken by the Banks in resisting the claims of the workmen but in these appeals we are not concerned with them because the Tribunal dealt with the point mentioned by us above as a preliminary issue and rejected the contention of the Banks
Twenty four of the Banks thereupon challenged the preliminary decision of the Tribunal on this question treating it as a preliminary award by filing two Writ Petitions Nos 2339 and 2742 of 1968 under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
The High Court also rejected the plea of the Banks
These two appeals have been brought up before us by certificate against the orders of the High Court dismissing the two writ petitions
In Civil Appeal No 20931968 the appellants are 10 Banks who 208 were petitioners before the High Court in Writ petition No 2339 of 1968 while 2 of the petitioner Banks in that writ petition have been impleaded as respondents
In Civil Appeal No 2094 of 1968 the appellants are also 10 Banks who had joined in filing the other Writ Petition No 27421968 in the High Court while one of the petitioner Banks in that writ petition has been impleaded as respondent and another has not joined the appeal as a party
In these appeals therefore we are only concerned with one single question as to whether the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate on the industrial dispute referred to it under section 101 d of the was barred by the provisions of section 61 of the Act
The Tribunal and the High Court in rejecting the plea taken on behalf of the Banks expressed the view that the disputes actually referred to the Tribunal were not capable of being decided by the Registrar of the Co operative Societies under section 61 of the Act and consequently the reference to the Industrial Tribunal under the was competent
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Banks took us through the provisions of the Act to indicate that besides being a local and special Act it is a self contained Act enacted for the purpose of successful working of Co operative Societies including Co operative Banks and there are provisions in the Act which clearly exclude the applicability of other laws if they happen to be in conflict with the provisions of the Act
It is no doubt true that the Act is an enactment passed by State Legislature which received the assent of the President so that if any provision of a Central Act including the  is repugnant to any provision of the Act the provision of the Act will prevail and not the provision of the Central 
The general proposition urged that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under the will be barred if the disputes in question can be competently decided by the Registrar under section 61 of the Act is therefore correct and has to be accepted
The question however that has to be examined is whether the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal in the present cases was such as was required to be referred to the Registrar and to be decided by him under section 61 of the Act
In order to properly appreciate the submissions which have been made on behalf of the Banks by their counsel it is necessary to set out the provisions of sections 16 61 62 and 133
of the Act which are as follows  16
Amendment of bye laws of a society  I No amendment of any bye law of a society shall be valid unless such amendment has been registered under this Act
Where such an amendment is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day then it 209 shall come into force on the day on which it is registered
2 Every proposal for such amendment shall be forwarded to the Registrar who shall if he is satisfied that the proposed amendment fulfils the conditions specified in subsection 1 of section 7 register the amendment within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of such proposals  Provided that the Government may for sufficient cause which shall be recorded in writing extend the said period for a further period of sixty days
3 The Registrar shall forward to the society a copy of the registered amendment together with a certificate signed and sealed by him and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered
4 Where the Registrar is not so satisfied he shall communicate by registered post the order of refusal together with the reasons therefore to the society within the period specified in sub section 2
5 If in the opinion of the Registrar an amendment of the bye laws of a society is necessary or desirable in the interest of such society or of the co operative movement he may in the manner prescribed call upon the society to make any amendment within such time as he may specify
If the society fails to make such an amendment within the time so specified the Registrar may after giving the society an opportunity of making its representation register such amendment and forward to the society by registered post a copy of the amendment together with a certificate signed by him such a certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered and such an amendment shall have the same effect as an amendment of any bye law made by the society
Disputes which may be referred to the Registrar 1 Notwithstanding anything in any law for the  time being in force if any dispute touching the constitution management or the business of a society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid employee of the society arises a among members past members and persons claiming through members past members And deceased members or 210 b between a member past member or Person claiming through a member past member or deceased member and the society its committee or any officer agent or employee of the society or c between the society or its committee and any past committee any officer agent or employee or any past officer past agent or past employee or the nominee heir or legal representative of any deceased officer deceased agent or deceased employee of the society or d between the society and any other society such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision
Explanation  For the purposes of this sub section a dispute shall include i a claim by a society for any debt or other amount due to it from a member past member or the nominee heir or legal representative of a deceased member whether such debt or other amount be admitted or not ii a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or other amount due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor whether such debt or other amount due be admitted or not iii a claim by a society against a member past member or the nominee heir or legal representative of a deceased member for the delivery of possession to the society of land or other immovable property resumed by it for breach of the conditions of assignment or allotment of such land or other immovable property
2 If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution management or the business of a society such question shall be decided by the Registrar
3 a Every dispute relating to or in connection with any election to a committee of a society referred to in clause a of sub section 3 of section 31 shall be referred for decision to a 211 Subordinate Judge or where there is no Sub ordinate Judge to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated whose decision thereon shall be final
b Every dispute relating to or in connection with any election to a committee of such class of societies as may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette be specified by the Government in this behalf and referred to in clause b of sub section 3 of section 31 shall be referred for decision to a District Munsiff having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated and his decision thereon shall be final
4 Every dispute relating to or in connection with any election to a committee shall be referred under sub section 1 of sub section 3 only after the date of declaration of the result of such election
Action to be taken by the Registrar on such reference 1 The Registrar may on receipt of the reference of a dispute under section 61 a elect to decide the dispute himself or b transfer it for disposal to any person who has been invested by the Government with powers in that behalf or c refer it for disposal to an arbitrator
2 Where the reference relates to any dispute involving immovable property the Registrar or such person or arbitrator may order that any person be joined as a party who has acquired any interest in such property subsequent to the acquisition of interest therein by a party to the reference and any decision that may be passed on the reference by the Registrar or the person or the arbitrator aforesaid shall be binding on the party so joined as if he were an original party to the reference
3 The Registrar may by order for reasons to be recorded therein withdraw any reference transferred under clause b of sub section I  or referred under clause c of that sub section and may elect to decide the dispute himself or transfer it to any other person under clause b of sub section I  or refer it to any other arbitrator under clause c of that subsection
212 4 The Registrar such person or arbitrator shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye laws and such decision shall subject to the provisions of section 76 be final
Pending final decision on the dispute the Registrar such person or arbitrator as the case may be may make such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessary in the interests of justice
Act to override other laws  The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law
 Reliance was placed on the non obstante clause Notwith standing anything in any law for the time being in force occurring in section 61 of the Act which has the effect that a dispute covered by this section must necessarily be referred to the Registrar for decision so that it cannot be referred to any other authority under any other law
Further strength is sought in support of this proposition from the provisions of section 133 of the Act which clearly lays down that the provisions of the Act have overriding effect if there be any provision in any other law inconsistent with the provisions of the Act
Then it was argued that the language of section 61 of the Act is wide enough to cover the disputes referred to the Tribunal in these cases because the disputes are between co operative societies and their employees and they touch the business of the co operative societies
In support of this submission learned counsel referred us to a number of decisions of various High Courts in which the scope of the provisions contained in section 61 of the Act or of similar provisions in other local enactments was considered
Most of these decisions were concerned with laying down the meaning of the expression touching the business of the society so as to include within its scope disputes of different nature between the co operative socie ties and their employees
The cases which have been brought to our notice are  1 a decision of a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in GIP Railway Employees Co operative Bank Ltd vs Bhikhaji Merwanji Karanjia Employee1 in which a similar provision contained in section 54 of the Bombay Co operative Societies Act No 7 of 1925 was interpreted 2 a decision in Sagar Motor Transport Karamachari Union Sagar vs Amar Kamgar Passenger Transport Company Co opera tive Society Sagar and Another2 where the Madhya Pradesh High Court interpreted section 552 of the Madhya Pradesh 1 AIR 1943 Bom
2 1969 18 Indian Factories and Labour Reports 27
213 Co operative Societies Act 1960 which required a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society arising between a society and its employees to be decided by the Registrar or any Officer appointed by him 3 a decision of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in M section Madhva Rao and Others vs D V K Surya Rao Member of the Pithapuram Co operative Bank Pithapuram and Others1 in which section 51 of the Madras Co operative Societies Act No 6 of 1932 which was very similar to section 61 of the Act was interpreted and 4 a decision of a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Farkhundali Nannhay vs Potdar VB 2 in which also section 54 of the Bombay Co operative Societies Act No 7 of 1925 came up for interpretation
Learned counsel for the appellants also brought to our notice a decision of a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Cooperative Milk Societies Union Ltd vs State of West Bengal and others3 where a dispute as to wages wage scales and dearness allowance was held not to be a dispute within the meaning of that word as defined in the Bengal Co operative Societies Act 1940 and sought to distinguish it on the ground that the decision in that case turned on the meaning specially given in that Act to the word dispute
It appears to us that it is not necessary to examine in detail the reasons given by the High Courts in the above cited cases for the interpretation placed by them on provisions similar to section 61 of the Act in view of a very recent decision of this Court in The Deccan Merchants Co operative Bank Ltd vs Messrs Dalichand Jugraj  Others4
In that case this Court had to interpret section 91 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act 1960 Maharashtra Act 32 of 1961 the relevant provision of which is reproduced below 91 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force any dispute touching the constitution elections of the office bearers conduct of general meetings management or business of a society shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute or by a federal society to which the society is affiliated or by a creditor of the society to the Registrar if both the parties thereto are one or other of the following  1 AIR 1954 Mad 103
3 2 1962 I LLJ 51
4 1969 1 SCR 887
 214 a a society its committee any past committee any past or present officer any past or present agent any past Or present servant or nominee heir or legal representative of any deceased officer deceased agent or deceased servant of the society or the Liquidator of the society One of the questions which the Court formulated as requiring an answer was  what is the meaning of the expression touching the business of the society  In order to decide this question the Court analysed the provisions of section 9 1  1  and held  Five kinds of disputes are mentioned in sub section 1 first disputes touching the constitution of a society secondly disputes touching election of the office bearers of a society thirdly disputes touching the con duct of general meetings of a society fourthly disputes touching the management of a society and fifthly disputes touching the business of a society
It is clear that the word business  in this context does not mean affairs of a society because election of office bearers conduct of general meetings and management of a society would be treated as affairs of a society
In this sub section the word business  has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act and the Rules and its bye laws
 In that case this Court was concerned with the question whether a dispute touching the assets of a society was a dispute touching the business of the society and it was in that context that the interpretation mentioned above was given by this Court
In considering the full scope of section 91 I of the Maharashtra Act 32 of 1961 the Court further proceeded to hold  While we agree that the nature of business which a society does can be ascertained from the objects of the society it is difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects can be said to be part of its business
We however agree that the word touching  is very wide and would include any matter which relates to or concerns the business of a society but we are doubtful whether the word affects  should also be used in defining the scope of the word touching 
215 This comment was made when taking
notice of the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Farkhundli vs Potdar1
The Court also held  One other limitation on the word dispute  may also be placed and that is that the word dispute  covers only those disputes which are capable of being resolved by the Registrar or his nominee  Considering the similarity between section 61 of the Act and section 91 1 of the Maharashtra Act 32 of 1961 we are of the opinion that the interpretation already placed by this Court on the provisions of section 91 I of the Maharashtra Act 32 of 1961 is fully applicable to the provisions of section 61 of the Act with which we are concerned
Consequently in deciding these appeals we must proceed on the basis that section 61 of the Act requires reference of a dispute to the Registrar only if the dispute is capable of being resolved by the Registrar or his nominee and further the dispute between the co operative society and the employee touches the business of the society in the sense explained by this Court in that case
Applying these tests we have no doubt at all that the dispute covered by the first issue referred to the Industrial Tribunal in the present cases could not possibly be referred for decision to the Registrar under section 61 of the Act
The dispute related to alteration of a number of conditions of service of the workmen which relief could only be granted by an Industrial Tribunal dealing with an industrial dispute
The Registrar it is clear from the provisions of the Act could not possibly have granted the reliefs claimed under this issue because of the limitations placed on his powers in the Act itself It is true that section 61 by itself does not contain any clear indication that the Registrar cannot entertain a dispute relating to alteration of conditions of service of the employees if a registered society but the meaning given to the expression touching the business of the society in our opinion makes it very doubtful whether a dispute in respect of alteration of conditions of service can be held to be covered by this expression
Since the word business is equated with the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society and since it has been held that it would be difficult to subscribe to the proportion that whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects such as laying down the conditions of service of its employees can be said to be a part of its business it would appear that a dispute relating to conditions of Service of the workmen employed by the society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the society
Further the position is clarified by the provisions of sub section
4 of section 62 of the Act which limit the power to be 1 1962 ILLJ 51
216 exercised by the Registrar when dealing with a dispute referred to him under section 61 by a mandate that he shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and bye laws
On the face of it the provisions of the Act the rules and the bye laws could not possibly permit the Registrar to change conditions of service of the workmen employed by the society
For the purpose of bringing facts to our notice in the present appeals the Rules framed by the Andhra Pradesh Government under the Act and the bye laws of one of the appellant Banks have been placed on the Paper books of the appeals be fore us
It appears from them that the conditions of service of the employees of the Bank have all been laid down by framing special bye laws
Most of the conditions of service which the workmen want to be altered to their benefit have thus been laid down by the bye laws so that any alteration in those conditions of service will necessarily require a change in the bye laws
Such a change could not possibly be directed by the Registrar when under section 624 of the Act he is specifically required to decide the dispute referred to him in
accordance with the provisions of the bye laws
It may also be noticed that a dispute referred to the Registrar under section 61 of the Act can even be transferred for disposal to a person who may have been invested by the Government with powers in that behalf or may be referred for disposal to an arbitrator by the Registrar
Such person or arbitrator when deciding the dispute will also be governed by the mandate in section 62 4 of the Act so that he will also be bound to reject the claim of the workmen which is nothing else than a request for alteration of conditions of service contained in the bye laws
It is thus clear that in respect of the dispute relating to alteration of various conditions of service the Registrar or other person dealing with it under section 62 of the Act is not competent to grant the relief claimed by the workmen at all
On the principle laid down by this Court in the case of the Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd1 therefore it must be held that this dispute is not a dispute covered by the provisions of section 61 of the Act
Such a dispute is not contemplated to be dealt with under section 62 of the Act and must therefore be held to be outside the scope of section 61
In this connection we may take notice of the view expressed by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in South Arcot Co operative Motor Transport Society Ltd for ex servicemen vs Syed Batcha and others2 where dealing with an industrial claim the learned Judge held  Therefore in regard to an industrial claim like the retrenchment compensation the remedy for the 1 1969 1 SCR 887
2 1960 II LLS 693 217 worker would be only to enforce it by the machinery created by the  namely by sections 10 and 33C2
The Madras Co operative Societies Act being itself a special statute the authority acting under it would have no jurisdiction beyond what the enactment itself conferred on him
lie could not therefore have jurisdiction to decide a dispute under the 
 That decision also related to section 51 of the Madras Co operative Societies Act 1932 which was similar in terms to section 61 of the Act
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Banks however urged a new point to challenge the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to deal with the dispute relating to conditions of service to the effect that the conditions of service having been made the subject matter of bye laws an Industrial Tribunal will not be competent to alter them because even an Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make orders contrary to law
For this purpose he referred us to a number of decisions of this Court in Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd New Delhi vs Their Workmen and Another1 The Management of Marina Hotel vs The Workmen 2  Cinema Theatres vs Their Workmen3 and The Hindustan Times Ltd New Delhi vs Their Workmen  Vice Versa4
In all these cases it was held that an Industrial Tribunal acted illegally in prescribing leave in excess of the number of days laid down by the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act 1954
In section 22 of that Act there was a specific prohibition that leave for sickness or casual leave with full wages shall not exceed 12 days and it was held that a direction made by the Tribunal granting to the workmen more than 12 days  sickness or casual leave was illegal
The principle of the decisions in those cases does not however appear to us to be applicable to the cases before us because in the present cases there is no prohibition contained in the Act that the conditions of service prescribed are not to be altered
The argument on behalf of the Bank however was that the bye laws which contained the conditions of service are themselves law so that any direction made by an Industrial Tribunal altering a condition of service con tained in a bye law would be an order contrary to law and hence illegal
We are unable to accept the submission that the bye laws of a co operative society framed in pursuance of the provisions of 1 1961 II LLJ 130 3 1264 II LLJ 128
Ll 2Sup
CI69 1 5 2  4 1964 T SCR 234
218 the Act can be held to be law or to have the force of law
It has no doubt been held that if a statute gives power to a Government or other authority to make rules the rules so framed have the force of statute and are to be deemed to be incorporated as a part of the statute
That principle however does not apply to bye laws of the nature that a co operative society is empowered by the Act to make
The bye laws that are contemplated by the Act can be merely those which govern the internal management business or administration of a society
They may be binding between the persons affected by them but they do not have the force of a statute
In respect of bye laws laying down conditions of service of the employees of a society the bye laws would be binding between the society and the employees just in the same manner as conditions of service laid down by contract between the parties
In fact after such bye laws laying down the conditions of service are made and any person enters the employment of a society those conditions of service will have to be treated as conditions accepted by the employee when entering the service and will thus bind him like conditions of service specifically forming part of the contract of service
The bye laws that can be framed by a society under the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and such Articles of Association have never been held to have the force of law
In a number of cases conditions of service for industries are laid down by Standing Orders certified under the  and it has been held that though such Standing Orders are binding between the employers and the employees of the industry governed by those Standing Orders they do not have such force of law as to be binding on industrial Tribunals adjudicating an industrial dispute
The jurisdiction which is granted to Industrial Tribunals by the is not the jurisdiction of merely administering the existing laws and enforcing existing contracts
Industrial Tribunals have the right even to vary contracts of service between the employer and the employees which jurisdiction can never be exercised by a civil court or a Registrar acting under the Co operative Societies Act so that the circumstance that in granting relief on issue No 1 the Tribunal will have to vary the special bye laws framed by the Cooperative Bank does not lead to the inference that the Tribunal would be incompetent to grant the reliefs sought in this reference
In fact the reliefs could only be granted by the Industrial Tribunal and could not fall within the scope of the powers of the Registrar dealing with a dispute under section 61 of the Act
We may also in this connection take notice of the submission made by learned counsel that the Registrar could have granted relief under section 16 5 of the Act if he thought that it was advis 219 able to grant that relief to the workmen
in our opinion this submission must be rejected for two reasons
The first reason is that action taken by the Registrar under section 165 of the Act will not be a decision on a dispute referred to him under section 61 of the Act
When dealing with the dispute under section 61 of the Act the Registrar is bound to decide the dispute in accordance with the existing bye laws so that if the dispute relates to alteration of conditions of service laid down in the bye laws he will be incompetent to grant the relief claimed
It is also to be noticed that a dispute referred to a Registrar under section 61 of the Act may be transferred for disposal to a person who has been invested by the Government with powers in that behalf or may be referred for disposal to an arbitrator
On the face of it such person or arbitrator cannot possibly exercise the powers of the Registrar under section 165 of the Act
The second reason is that under section 165 of the Act the power given to the Registrar to propose amendments in the bye laws and to enforce them if the proposal is not accepted by a society is to be exercised only when the Registrar is of the opinion that it is necessary or desirable to do so in the interests of such society or of the co operative movement
Amendments in bye laws under section 165 of the Act are not contemplated in the interests of the workmen or for the purpose of resolving industrial disputes
The provisions of section 165 of the Act thus appear to us to be irrelevant when considering the scope of the jurisdiction of the Registrar under section 61 of the Act
Consequently the decision of the High Court holding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with the industrial dispute referred to it must be upheld
We may also take notice of an argument advanced at the last stage by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Banks that in any case matters covered by issues Nos 2 and 3 referred to the Tribunal could have been competently decided by the Registrar and the reference in respect of those two issues at least should be held to be incompetent
We do not think that at this stage there is any need for us to decide this question because such a point was not raised at all in the petitions filed under article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court
In those petitions the competence of the reference to the Industrial Tribunal as a whole was challenged on the ground that it was barred because of the jurisdiction of the Registrar to deal with the dispute under section 61 of the Act
Consequently we need not deal with the question whether a particular issue forming part of the reference has beencompetently referred or not
The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs
One hearing fee
Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Disputes between some Cooperative Central Banks of Andhra Pradesh and their employees relating to  i service conditions such as salary scales dearness and other allowances conveyance charges working hours and promotion age of retirement provident fund and gratuity leave rules departmental enquiries probation and confirmation and ii the question whether transfers of some employees were justified were referred to the Industrial Tribunal under section 101d of the 
On the question whether the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the disputes because  1 the disputes could be referred to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1964 2 the Registrar in dealing with the disputes referred to him under section 61 of the Andhra Act could grant relief by amending the bye laws unders 165 and 3 If the Industrial Tribunal gave relief to the employees it would be altering the bye laws thus making orders contrary to law
HELD 1 a The Andhra Act is an enactment passed by the State Legislature and received the assent of the President
Therefore if any provision of the a Central Act is repugnant to any provision of the Andhra Act the latter would prevail
But section 61 of the Andhra Act requires reference of a dispute to the Registrar only if the dispute is capable of being resolved by him or his nominee and if the dispute between the cooperative society and its employee touches the business of the society
The word business  means actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society
Therefore whatever a society does or is required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects such as laying down the conditions of service of its employees cannot be said to be a part of its business  and hence a dispute relating to conditions of service of the workmen employed by the society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the society
2O9 E F 215 B D G H b The Registrar could not have granted the reliefs claimed because of the limitations placed on his powers by the Andhra Act
Most of the Conditions of service which the workmen want to be altered to their benefit have been laid down by the bye laws so that any alteration in those con ditions of service will require a change in the bye laws
But such a change could not possibly be directed by the Registrar because under section 624 of the Andhra Act the Registrar or other person or arbitrator to whom the dispute may be referred under section 61 is specifically required to decide the dispute refer red to him in accordance with the provisions of the bye laws
2l6 B D F 206 The Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd vs ms
Dulichand Jugraj fain 1969 1 SCR 887 followed
South Arcot Cooperative Motor Transport Society Ltd vs Syed Batcha  approved
2The provisions of section 165 of the Andhra Act are irrelevant in considering the scope of the jurisdiction of the Registrar under section 61 of the Act because  a any action taken by the Registrar under section 165 will not be a decision in a dispute referred to him under section 61 b though the Registrar has the power to amend bye laws under section 165 any other person or arbitrator to whom the disputes may be referred has no such power and c even the Registrar s powers under section 165 to amend bye laws is to be exercised only if he is of the opinion that it would be in the interests of the society and are not contemplated to be exercised in the interests of the workmen or for the purpose of resolving industrial disputes
219 B E 3 The principle that rules framed under a statute have the force of statute does not apply to bye laws of a cooperative society
They merely govern the internal management business or administration of a society and may be binding between the persons affected by them but are neither law nor do they have the force of law
They are just like conditions of service laid down by contract between the parties or like bye laws under the Articles of Association of a company under the Companies Act or Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment Standing OrdersAct 1946
Therefore the circumstance that in granting relief the Tribunal may have to vary the special bye laws framed by the Cooperative Banks does not lead to the inference that the Tribunal would be making orders contrary to law and therefore is incompetent to grant the reliefs claimed
The jurisdiction granted to the Tribunal by the is not the jurisdiction of merely administering existing laws and enforcing existing contracts
The Tribunal has the jurisdiction even to vary contracts of service between employer and employees
Further in the Andhra Act there is no prohibition that the conditions of service prescribed are not to be altered
Therefore the reliefs could only be granted by the Industrial Tribunal and could not fall within the scope of the Registrar s powers under the Cooperative Societies Act
217 H 218 D H Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd vs Their Workmen 1961 II LLJ 130 SCThe Management of Marina Hotel vs The Workmen   Cinema Theatres vs The Workmen and The Hindustan Times Ltd vs Their Workmen 1964 1 SCR 234 distinguished
Since the competence of the reference to the Tribunal as a whole was challenged on the ground that it was barred by section 61 of the Andhra Act the question whether a particular issue forming part of the reference was competently referred or not did not arise
219 F G H