IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1460 of 2010 Date of decision: 7.12.2010 Rajinder Kumar ..Appellant Versus The Sirsa Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Jasminder Singh Thind, Advocate for the appellant. *** GURDEV SINGH, J.(ORAL) The appellant/plaintiff, Rajinder Kumar, having lost before the trial court and the First Appellate Court, has preferred this second appeal. He filed suit for mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant Society to release the special pay to him w.e.f. 1.1.1999 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month which has been stopped/withheld by the defendant wrongly and illegally without passing any order in that regard with a further direction to release the TA and DA which are payable to him for his tour on official duties and which have been withheld w.e.f. 12.4.1997, along with interest on the whole of the aforesaid arrears at the rate of 18% per annum. He stated in the plaint that he is working as a driver with the defendant society and was given the special pay of Rs. 50/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs. 100/- w.e.f. 1.5.1986 and then to Rs. 200/- w.e.f. 19.5.1988. The defendant has stopped paying the special pay to him since 1.1.1999 without any cause and justification and without passing any order and without giving any opportunity of personal hearing. However that special pay was released w.e.f. September 1998 but the same has again RSA No. 1460 of 2010 -2- been stopped. He has also not been paid TA and DA for his tour on official duties within the Sirsa District and the defendant stopped paying the same w.e.f. 12.4.1997. He is entitled to receive the arrears of special pay, TA and DA, alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The suit was contested by the defendant. It has been admitted in the written statement that the special pay was allowed to the plaintiff, but later on the same was withdrawn on account of society going into losses. Special Pay, TA and DA cannot be given to the employees of the Cooperative Society as per the directions of the Higher Authorities. The resolutions dated 4.10.1996 and 17.12.1996 were passed by the Board of Directors, vide which it was resolved that the driver of the Society would not be given Rs. 200/- per month but would be given the incentives of Rs. 100/- after four turns to the driver of the trucks and that if the driver goes out of the District and come back upon the trucks then only daily was to be paid and the daily of local duty would not be given and to that effect a letter was also issued to the plaintiff and other employees. In replication to written statement the plaintiff denied the contentions raised therein and reiterated his averments made in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to special pay and amount of TA and DA along with interest, as alleged?OPP 2.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3.Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. On the other hand the RSA No. 1460 of 2010 -3- defendants examined Sultan Singh as DW-1. After appreciating the evidence adduced on record and arguments advanced by both sides, the learned trial court decided all the issues against the plaintiff and resultantly dismissed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 4.10.2006. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide judgement and decree dated 19.8.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. It has been submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that the act of the defendant in withholding special pay, TA and DA cannot be sustained, as no opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff before withhoding the same. The Rules of natural justice were not complied with and the findings recorded by the Lower Courts are liable to be set aside. He also submitted that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as acts of the defendant so complained of are wrong and illegal and statutory notice was duly served, before the filing of the suit. Admittedly the plaintiff is an employee of the defendant, which is a Cooperative Society. According to Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, if any dispute regarding the business of the Cooperative Society arises between the society and its employee the same is to be referred to the Arbitration of the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit, or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited Vs. Special Secretary to Govt. Of Haryana Corpo. And others(2007) (1) RCR Civil Page 113, t hat where the employee of Cooperative Society is dismissed, the remedy available with him is of arbitration before the Registrar Cooperative RSA No. 1460 of 2010 -4- Societies and an order passed by the Arbitrator is subject to the right of appeal. According to Section 108 said Act no Civil Court has jurisdiction in respect of any dispute required under Section 102 to be referred to the Arbitrator by the Registrar. From joint reading of the abovesaid sections, it is very much clear that the dispute raised by the plaintiff in this case is clearly covered by Section 102 and as such and the civil court had no jurisdiction and correct findings to that effect was recorded by the first Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) 7.12.2010 JUDGE Poonam (II)