1. Heard.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1998 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja, in Civil Appeal No.2-B/1988, whereby the learned lower appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1987 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur, in Civil Suit No.26-B/1984.

3. Facts leading to the present second appeal is that the respondent-plaintiff (Purshottam Ram Lakda) was an employee of the appellant-defendant (Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Ltd.) and he was working in the said Bank on the post of Manager. On account of certain alleged act of serious misconduct, services of the respondent-plaintiff were terminated vide order dated 15.3.1984, by way of disciplinary action.

It is this order of termination which has been challenged by the respondent-plaintiff through the Civil Suit which has been filed for declaring the order of termination dated 15.3.1984 to be void and for making the unpaid salary and other payable dues to him. The trial Court vide its order dated 6.11.1987 decided the said Civil Suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff holding that the order of termination dated 15.3.1984 is bad in law and further directed that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to be reinstated in services and would also be entitled for all consequential benefits from the time of his suspension order of the order of reinstatement, including the cost of litigation. The trial Court while deciding the said Civil Suit, framed an issue i.e. issue No.6 as to whether the Court below has the jurisdiction of deciding the issue. After considering the submissions of the rival parties, the Court below reached to a conclusion that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. While dealing with the said issue, though the Court below has referred to the provisions of Section 55 (2) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act, 1960"), but without further dealing with the issue, has only held that since the defendant-appellant has not been able to convince the Court below as to how it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the issue was decided.

The said order of the trial Court was further assailed by the appellant-defendant by way of Civil Appeal No.2-B/1988 before the appellate Court i.e. 1st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur. Learned appellate Court also while deciding the said issue reached to the conclusion that the dispute raised by the plaintiff-respondent was in-fact maintainable before Civil Court and categorically given a finding that it is not a case where such a dispute raised by the plaintiff-respondent is one which is barred under Section 82 of the Act, 1960, and the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.1998 confirming the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1987 passed by the trial Court. It is this judgment and decree dated 20.11.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No.2-B/1988, which has been assailed in the instant Second Appeal.

4. On going through certain provisions of the Act, 1960, it reveals that Section 55 empowers the Registrar to determine conditions of employment in societies. For ready reference Section 55 of the Act, 1960 is reproduced below:-

"55. Registrar S. power to determine conditions of employment in societies.-

(1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf.

[(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 dispu