1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of an order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dismissing in limine the petitioner's writ petition wherein he challenged the legality of an order passed by the Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, Co-operation Department, setting aside an order of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jhelum.
2. The petitioner is a Sub-Accountant in the Gujrat Central Co-operative Bank, Limited, Gujrat and he felt aggrieved over certain matters, namely ; that he was not confirmed although he was entitled to be confirmed as a Sub-Accountant ; that although he was entitled to promotion to the post of Junior Accountant, he was not so promoted ; that his pay scale was reduced to his prejudice ; that he was fined Rs. 10 by the respondent Bank without .Intimating reasons therefore that although he had applied for leave to the Bank for certain days as earned leave, the latter treated those days as extraordinary lean; without pay ; and that the petitioner was wrongly held to have absented himself without sanction of leave. The petitioner claimed that on the basis of the agreement entered into between himself and the Bank at the time the former entered the Bank's service, these matters could be referred to arbitration, and ultimately the matters were referred to the Assistant Registrar for arbitration. The Assistant Registrar gave his award on 11-2-1969, in favour of the petitioner. The respondent Bank filed an appeal from this order of the Assistant Registrar before the aforesaid Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of West Pakistan, respondent No. 1, who by his order dated the 7th June 1969, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar on the ground that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution but his petition was dismissed in limine.
3. It has been contended before us that the petitioner was entitled to refer the dispute to arbitration under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the 1925 Act) which was promulgated in the Punjab in the year 1965, irrespective of the fact that on 29-I1-1957 when he asked for arbitration the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 (herein--after called the 1912 Act) was in force. The petitioner has not contended that the 1925 Act is retrospective in operation.
4. In our opinion, irrespective of the question which of the two aforesaid Acts apply to the present case, neither the 1912 Act nor the 1925 Act entitled the petitioner to refer his dispute to arbitration, for, both the laws allowed arbitration only in case of disputes "touching the business of Society" as is evident from the following provisions : "43.-(1) The Provincial Government may, for the whole or any part of the Province and for any registered society or class of such societies, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may- (a)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------..
(1) provide that any dispute touching the business of a Society between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past member or between a member or past member or persons so claiming and the committee or any officer shall be referred to the Registrar for decision or, if he so directs, to arbitration and prescribe the mode of appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators and the procedure to be followed in proceedings before the Registrar or such arbitrator or arbitrators, and the enforcement of the decisions of the Registrar or the awards of arbitrators ;" and "54. Arbitration.-If any dispute touching the business of a society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid servant of the society arises-
(a) between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past member, or
(b) between members or past members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society, or
(c) between the society or its committee, and any past or present member of the society, or
(d) between the society or its committee and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society or a surety or such officer, agent or servant, whether such surety is or is not a member of the society, or
(e) between a financing bank authorised under subsec--tion (1) of section 34 and a person who is not a member of a society, it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee, or if either of the parties so desires, to arbitra--tion of three arbitrators who shall be the Registrar or his nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concerned."
5. It may have been noticed that under the 1912 Act the peti--tioner also does not fall within the description of the party who is competent to ask for arbitration.
6. A casual reference to the impugned order appearing at page 83 of the paper-book will show that the subject-matters of dispute between the parties are service matters and as such not referable to arbitration under any of the aforesaid two Acts.
7. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.