A co-operative society has no power to suspend its employees unless such power is specifically granted by the byelaws of the society.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner Dukhooram Gupta challenges the order of suspension, dated 30-5-1980, passed by the Cooperative 'agricultural Association, Kawardha (respondent No. 1 ). Respondents 2 and 3 are respectively the Managing Committee and Secretary of the Association and respondent No. 4 is the Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Manager by the Association with the sanction of the Registrar on 14-3-1952 and was confirmed on the above post on 13-10-1952. In 1955, the Registrar inspected the work of the Association and found several items of defalcation and irregularities. On his direction, the petitioner was suspended on 19-3-1955 and a departmental enquiry was started against him. The petitioner applied to the High Court for quashing the order of suspension and succeeded in Misc. Petition No. 269 of 1956, decided on 28-2-1959. The Association took the matter in Letters Patent Appeal; but while that appeal was awaiting decision, it dismissed the petitioner on 8-8-1958. The Letters Patent Appeal was hence dismissed. Another petition challenging the dismissal was then filed by the petitioner (Misc. Petition No. 314 of 1958) which was allowed on 9-12-1959. The decision is reported in Dukhuram Gupta v. Cooperative Agricultural Association Ltd. , Kawardha, 1960 MPLJ 433 : (AIR 1960 Madh Pra 273 ). After this, the Registrar directed Ms reinstatement; but the Association did not do so. On 29-5-1960, the Managing Committee oi the Association again passed a resolution suspending him with retrospective effect from 19-3-1955. It is this order which is challenged before us.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that the Association has no power to suspend him at all; much less with retrospective effect. The order of suspension is further challenged on the ground that the Registrar's sanction has not been obtained. Several other grounds are stated in the petition; but we need not refer to them, as they were not raised in arguments.

( 4 ) NO return was filed on behalf of any of the respondents. Shri A. R. Choubey for respondents 1 to 3 raised a preliminary objection that no writ can be issued in matters between a cooperative society and its servants and the petition is hence untenable. He further controverted the points which were pressed on behalf oi the petitioner.

( 5 ) WE shall first take up the question whether a dispute between a co-operative society and its servants, like the present one, is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Shri Choubey draws a distinction between corporations which are directly incorporated by a statute and those which are merely registered under a statute. According to him, the latter class of corporations are like Joint Stock Companies and are not different from private individuals. No writ can therefore issue against a co-operative society.

( 6 ) SUPPORT is sought from the decision in Ramanath Sharma v. State of M. P. , AIR 1959 Madh Pra 218. Krishnan, J. after discussing that: statutory commercial corporation owned by State are amenable to writs observed in that case: "they are not departments of Government, or statutory corporations, but are private juristic-persons, subject certainly to the laws and regulations applicable. They might enter into various contracts for employment or for commercial activities that are obviously subject to the general and special laws. These bodies form, as it were, a three tier system. There are employees or other contracting parties with a nexus with the corporate bodies that is purely contractual. It is for the courts to decide upon the legality or otherwise of the contracts, and to award the appropriate remedies under the general law. Then there are corporations themselves. Thirdly, there are controlling authorities empowered to enforce the special law on the corporations. The Joint Stock Companies, for example, are subject to the control of the Registrar,