Karnataka High Court
Rangappa S/O Yenkappa Major Workmen In ... vs The Management Co-Op Spinning Mills ... on 31 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(4)KARLJ538, 2007 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 207 (KAR.) = 2006 (5) AIR KAR R 357, 2006 (5) AIR KAR R 357
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J.
1. The petitioners are workmen employed with the respondent. The respondent, a Spinning Mill, is managed by a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.
2. A dispute had arisen as between the workmen and the management, the same had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal. During the pendency of the dispute, namely I.D. 15/1983, the management had sought approval of orders of dismissal of several workmen, including the petitioners herein. The management had also raised a contention that in view of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('KCS Act') the reference was not maintainable and that the dispute was not an industrial dispute. The Labour Court had rejected the application of the management seeking approval of the orders of dismissal by an order dated 19.1.1991 and had answered the reference in favour of the workmen. The management having challenged the Award before this Court in writ proceedings the same was dismissed as on 4.3.1998.
3. The petitioners however, were denied backwages and other benefits due to them and it is in this background that an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act came to be filed before the Labour Court by the petitioners. The Labour Court having summarily rejected the application on the ground that the management is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and in terms of the decision reported in Veerashaiva Cooperative Bank Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court , the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the applicants. This is under challenge.
4. The Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the dispute as such having been adjudicated earlier and having attained finality by the Award in favour of these petitioners having been affirmed by this Court in Writ Proceedings as above said - There was no scope to consider whether a dispute was maintainable and whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The application having been filed to recover money payable in terms of the Award, the order of the Labour Court was clearly in error.
5. The Counsel for the respondent on the other hand would contend that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka Sugar Workers Federation (R) v. State of Karnataka has held that when the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, in respect of matters covered under Section 70, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act stand excluded to that extent. In respect of all other matters which are not covered under Section 70, the Industrial Disputes Act would apply. He would submit that the claim for backwages being a subject that would stand covered under the expression "terms of employment" as found under Section 70 of the KCS Act would be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
6. The Counsel also relies on the judgment in the case of Management of Hukkeri and Ors. v. S.R. Vastrad . This Court while dealing with a case of persons aggrieved by an Award passed by the Labour Court, which was passed before the ruling in the Full Bench Judgment cited above when it declared the law upholding the law laid down in Veerashaiva Co-operative Bank's case held that the law declared by the Full Bench would have to be applied from the date the amendment Act 19/1976 came into force i.e., on 20.1.1976 and hence any Award passed by the Labour Court subsequent to the said date, if it has not attained finality, would have to be quashed.
7. Reliance was also placed on Sarwan Kumar v. Madanlal Aggarwal 2003 SAR (Civil) 226 wherein an objection as to jurisdiction raised at the stage of execution of a decree was upheld by the Supreme Court. It was held that when the Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cause and to pass a decree - Such a decree could be challenged at any later stage, including execution proceedings.
8. On these rival contentions, it is seen that the Award of the Labour Court in the first instance did appear to attain a semblance of a finality in the same having been challenged before this Court in writ proceedings unsuccessfully. The respondent has consistently maintained that an industrial dispute was not maintainable.
9. In the face of the amended Clause (d) of Section 70 of the KCS Act with the additional phrase "not withstanding anything contrary contained in the Industrial Disputes Act 1947" as inserted by 2 of 2000. According to the statement of objects and reasons of Amending Act 2 of 2000, the amendment was necessary "to bar Industrial Tribunals from entertaining disputes of the nature of industrial disputes arising under the Co-operative Societies Act in order to avoid multiplicity of fora and for certain other purposes."
10. The proceedings in respect of an application under Section 33C(2) being in the nature of execution proceedings, as the award was indeed a nullity, the same could not be enforced in the light of the law laid down in Sarwan Kumar, supra, and the Labour Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioners.
The writ petition is hence dismissed.