Allahabad High Court
Secretary Sadhan Sahkari Samiti ... vs Presiding Officer Labour Court ... on 4 April, 2022
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?AFR Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11395 of 2017 Petitioner :- Secretary Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd.Thru Secy. Maniram And Anr Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad And Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Saryu Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Shobh Nath Pandey Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the labour court in exercise of the powers under section 33(C)(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The facts, in brief, are that the respondent claiming himself to be employed with the petitioner filed an application under the Payment of Wages Act alleging that the wages paid to the petitioner were less than the wages to which the petitioner was entitled and by means of the order dated 29.03.2004, the authority under the payment of wages act determined that the petitioner was paid wages less by Rs.1077/- and accepted the contention of the respondent for payment of difference of payment of wages for the period December 2001 to April 2002 and thus passed an award directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.21,740/-. The said award was never challenged and the admitted position as of now is that the petitioner has been paid the amount as awarded by the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act. After the said award, the respondent preferred an application under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming that once the wages were determined by means of the order dated 29.03.2004, for the subsequent period also, the respondent has not been paid wages of which he was entitled. Based upon the said application, an order was passed holding that the respondent was entitled to difference of payment of wages for the period December 2001 up to June 2006 (fifty five months) and the same were quantified and awarded at Rs.59,235/- with a further penalty of Rs.59,235/- was also imposed and the petitioners were directed to pay a total amount of Rs.1,18,470/- to the respondent. The said order is under challenge in the present proceedings.
The counsel for the petitioner argues that the order passed in exercise of powers under section 33(C)(2) of the Act is bad in law inasmuch as the award in favour of the respondent dated 29.03.2004 had quantified the dues payable to the respondent at Rs.21,740/-, the authority under section 33(C)(2) could not have determined the amount allegedly due by the respondent for the period other than claimed leading to passing of the award dated 29.03.2004. It is further argues that the respondent had drawn the bills for payment of his dues and after he was terminated, the respondent preferred the application. In fact the respondent challenged the termination order by filing a writ petition before this court, which was dismissed directing the respondent to prefer a claim under section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. It is stated that the respondent did not file any proceedings under section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and instead filed an application under section 33 (C) (2) of the Act, which has been allowed. He further argues that although the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, had the power to pass an award, however, the labour court does not have any jurisdiction to entertain any dispute in between the Cooperative Society and its Members except by way of invoking the procedure as prescribed under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and others; 2007 (11) SCC 756 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal vs. Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Mujuri Vikas Khand, Paniyara and others; 2008 (4) SCC 34. In the light of the said judgments, he argues that the labour court did not have the jurisdiction, as such, the order deserves to be set aside.
The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, tries to justify the order by arguing that once the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act had quantified the salary payable to the respondent, only for the purposes of computing the benefits, the relief as availed by the respondent was available under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further argues that the question of labour court having jurisdiction was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Annamma vs. Secretary, Cochin Cooperative Hospital Society Limited; 2018 (2) SCC 729. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and others; AIR 1978 Supreme Court 548. In the light of the above two judgments, the counsel for the respondent argues that the petition is liable to be dismissed as the respondent was vigilant over his rights to approach the labour court for payment of his dues. He also argues that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra), a Cooperative Society would also fall within the definition of the 'industry'.
The counsel for the petitioner argues that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Annamma (supra) does not take into consideration the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) and Prabhu Dayal (supra) and the same being rendered in the facts arising out of the Kerala Cooperative Society Act would not be applicable to the present case.
In the light of the arguments raised at the bar, this court is to decide whether the labour court was justified in exercise of the powers under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to have passed the order as has been done by means of the present order, impugned in the present writ petition.
What emerges from the pleadings is that by means of an award dated 29.03.2014, the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act had quantified the payments to the respondent for the period December 2001 to April 2002 at Rs.21,740/-. No other proceedings were ever initiated under the Payment of Wages Act by the respondent. The respondent approached the labour court by filing an application under section 33(C)(2) and on which the labour court assessed the amount payable for the period 2001 up to 2006.
The first argument as to whether the labour court has jurisdiction for passing the order has been squarely concluded by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) followed by Prabhu Dayal's case (supra) to hold that the remedy in case of a dispute in between the cooperative society and its members would be under section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act and the labour court would not have the jurisdiction. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment holds as under :
"Alongwith the appeal, some appointment orders have been filed as annexures. The appointment order clearly says that the services were governed by the Service Regulations, 1975 and the bye-laws of the bank. It is relevant to mention here that the services of the employees of the Bank are governed by service regulations 1975 framed under the Act of 1965, which provides complete machinery and adjudication. Moreover, the provisions under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is elaborate in this regard, which provides complete machinery that if there is any dispute between the employers and the employees of the Cooperative Society, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitrator as provided under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act are pari materia and this Court in the matter of R. C. Tewari vs. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. 1997 (5) SCC 125 held that the Labour Court and Industrial Laws are not applicable where complete machinery has been provided under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act and in such view of the matter the Learned Additional Labour Commissioner U.P. has no jurisdiction to pass orders in the nature it has been passed."
The said judgments were rendered while interpreting the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act would thus be binding on this court. The judgment in the case of K.A. Annamma (supra) does not take into consideration the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Prabhu Dayal (supra) and the same is also rendered in the context of the provisions of Kerala Cooperative Societies Act.
Thus, in the facts of the present case, the law as propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) would hold the field.
The issue with regard to the cooperative society being an 'industry' as defined under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act were neither raised before the labour court nor contested.
In the light of the said, I am of the firm view that the labour court has erred in passing the award for the period 2001 up to 2006. There being no dispute that the award dated 29.03.2004 has already been satisfied, the order dated 17.04.2017 is not sustainable and is set aside.
The writ petition stands disposed off in terms of the said order.
Order Date :- 4.4.2022 VNP/-