Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vindhyachal Super Thermal Power ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 15 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(2)MPLJ645
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
ORDER R.S. Garg, J.
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 11-2-1997 made in Case No. 1/96-ID Act/33-C(2). The respondent No. 2 had moved an application Under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for payment of the difference of wages. The petitioner raised an objection that as the matter pertains to a Co-operative Society, the Labour Court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act would have no jurisdiction. The said objection was overruled by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sidhi, observing that as Under Section 92 and 93 of the Co-operative Societies Act, application of Industrial Disputes Act has not been excluded, the Labour Court would have jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner-Society has filed this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of R. C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2652, the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute. He submits that the Order passed by the Labour Court is a nullity.
3. Contending contrary, Shri K. P. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that if certain matters cannot be submitted to the jurisdiction of the Registrar Under Section 55(2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (For short 'the Act'), then in such matters the Labour Courts jurisdiction is not excluded and the award is valid.
4. Section 55 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 reads as under :-
"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 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 thirty 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."
5. Sub-section (2) of Section 55 would clearly cover within its sweep every dispute including a dispute regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society when it arises between a society and its employees.
6. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that dispute relating to difference of wages would not be covered Under Section 55(2) of the Act, therefore, the award made by the Labour Court calls for no interference.
7. In the matter of R. C. Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 3 of its judgment has clearly observed that where a dispute relates to the terms of employment, working conditions, disciplinary action taken by a society or arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Asstt. Registrar, shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that non-payment of the wages would be outside the scope of Section 55(2) of the Act. When a dispute is in relation to the terms of employment and working condition, then it would certainly cover a dispute relating to payment of wages and obviously would include a dispute in relation to the payment of the difference of wages. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it cannot be held that the Labour Court had any jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. The petition on this short ground deserves to and is accordingly allowed. The Award made on 11-2-1997 in the above referred case deserves to and is accordingly quashed being without jurisdiction.
8. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is, however, directed that if within 45 days from today the petitioner files a dispute Under Section 55(2) of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the competent authority, then none would be permitted to raise the question of limitation and on such dispute being filed within the time aforesaid, it shall be decided on its own merits.
9. The petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. C. C. to the parties within a week if applied on urgent charges.