B.H.E.L. Shikshak Sangh vs Heavy Electricals Education ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 974 MP

                                  1                   F.A. No.135/1997



 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 17th OF JANUARY, 2023
                FIRST APPEAL No. 135 of 1997
BETWEEN:-

B.H.E.L. SHIKSHAK SANGH, REGISTRATION
NO.941/92 UNDER THE MADHYA PRADESHH
SOCIETY ADHINIYAM, 1973, 121, MIG, 'C'
SECTOR, PHASE - I, PO PIPLANI, AYODHYA
NAGAR,      BHOPAL,     THROUGH     ITS
SECRETARY, SHRI J.K. GUPTA, S/O SHRI
RAMBHAROSE GUPTA, UPPER DIVISION
TEACHER, HEAVY ELECTRICALS VIKRAM
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PIPLANI,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                       .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.  HEAVY ELECTRICALS EDUCATION
SOCIETY, REGISTRATION NO.314 UNDER
THE   MADHYA     PRADESH    SOCIETY
REGISTRATION ACT, 1959, BARKHEDA
(MADHYA                    PRADESH)

2. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED,
BHOPAL    THROUGH    ITS  EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR - PRESENTLY SUPERSEDED -
THROUGH THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, SHRI
M.K. GYANCHANDANI, SECRETARY, BOARD
OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BHOPAL



                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHOK LALWANI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
       This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the

following:
                                     2                      F.A. No.135/1997


                               JUDGMENT

The first appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1996 passed by Seventh Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.42-A/1993 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for payment of salary at par with the employee of defendant No.2 has been dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiff claims itself to be a society registered under Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam. They are the employees of the defendant No.1 namely Heavy Electricals Education Society. The suit was filed on the ground that the employees working under the defendant No.1 are also entitled for the same salary which is being paid to the teachers of the defendant No.2.

3. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed their separate written statements and claimed that the defendant No.1 is a separate legal entity and the defendant No.2 has no control over the same. The employees of the defendant No.1 cannot be treated as an employee of the defendant No.2 and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.

4. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that the plaintiff has an efficacious remedy under Section 55(2) of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act.

5. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that in fact defendant No.1 is being controlled by the defendant No.2. The Patron-in-Chief of the defendant No.1 is the head of unit of defendant No.2, therefore, de facto all the controlling powers vest with the defendant No.2 and therefore,

the trial Court committed a material illegality by holding that the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 are two separate entities.

6. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent No.2. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 was independently registered under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act and has its own memorandum of articles. The defendant No.1 is controlled by the governing body constituted under the Memorandum of Articles and the trial Court did not commit any mistake by holding that the defendant No.1 is a completely different entity from the defendant No.2.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The only question for consideration is as to whether the defendant No.1 is owned and controlled by the defendant No.2 or not? Memorandum of Articles of defendant No.1 Ex. P/3 clarifies this situation. As per the Memorandum of Articles, Ex. P/3 the society shall consist of : (i) Patron-in-Chief, (ii) Life members, (iii) Ordinary members and (iv) Nominated members and the affairs of the society shall be managed by the governing committee consisting of 11 members as mentioned in clause 6 of the Memorandum of Association i.e.

1. President nominated by H.E. Management

2. Vice President Elected by Members

3. Secretary Nominated by H.E. Management

4. Joint Secretary Principal/Head master of the school

5. Treasurer Nominated by H.E. Management

6. Members (i) One Labour Officer nominated by H.E.

Management

(ii) Two nominated by Staff Committee/Joint

Committee or such other Committees

(iii) One nominated by M.P. Govt. Education Department

(iv) One representative of the teachers (elected)

(v) One elected by ordinary members and life members, jointly.

Merely because some of the members are also the employees, who are to be nominated by the defendant No.2 would not mean that the defendant No.2 is the controlling authority of the defendant No.1.

9. Thus, the trial Court did not commit any mistake by holding that the defendant No.1 is a separate entity and the defendant No.2 has no control over the same. Since the defendant No.1 is registered under Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, therefore, the dispute has to be raised by the plaintiff under Section 55(2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act which reads as under:

"55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies.- (1) ............... ............... .....

(2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees:

Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to

him within thi1ty days from the date of order sought to be impugned:

Provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded:

Provided also that the Registrar or the officer referred to above may admit dispute after the expiry of thirty days, if the applicant satisfy the Registrar or officer referred to above that he had sufficient cause for not referring the dispute within the stipulated time."

10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any mistake by dismissing the suit.

11. Ex-consequentia, the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1996 passed by Seventh Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.42-A/1993 is hereby affirmed.

12. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

vc

VARSHA CHOURASIYA 2023.01.20 17:26:48 +05'30'