Bombay High Court
Amravati Grower'S Co-Operative ... vs Sheshrao K. Ingle And Others on 10 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993)ILLJ11BOM
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order dated September 3, 1990, by which preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was rejected by the Industrial Court, as well as the order dated September 21, 1990 passed by the Court granting the wages of the employees.
2. It is not disputed that an interim order of winding-up of the petitioner-society had been passed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act on February 3, 1988 and the final order came to be made on April 5, 1988. A proceeding was initiated under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('Unfair Labour Practices Act' for short) by the respondents, and the petitioner raised a preliminary objection to it, on the ground that as the winding-up order had been passed, the proceedings could not continue in view of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, without obtaining the permission of the Registrar. This objection was over-ruled by the Industrial Court on September 3, 1990 by the impugned order at Annexure-X to the petition and is being challenged by this writ petition.
3. Under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, save as expressly provided in that Act, no Civil Court shall take cognizance of any matter connected with the winding-up or dissolution of a society under that Act; and when a winding-up order has been made, no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie or be proceeded with against the society or the liquidator, except by leave of the Registrar, and subject to such terms as he may impose. It is not disputed that the leave of the Registrar had not been obtained in the present case. Therefore, Shri Paliwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that proceedings under the Unfair Labour Practices Act could not be initiated or proceeded with against the petitioner-society. On the other hand, the submission of Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the respondents, is that Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act would not apply to the proceedings before the Industrial Court, because the first part of Section 107 speaks of the Jurisdiction of Civil Court to take cognizance of any matter connected with winding-up or dissolution of a society under the said Act, when a reference is made to suit or other legal proceedings. In the second part, what is implicit is that the suit or other proceedings should be initiated or be pending in the Civil Court. It is difficult to agree with this submission, because the two parts of the section cover entirely different subject matters. While the first deals with the matter connected with the winding-up or dissolution of a society, the latter refers to any suit or other legal proceedings against the society or the liquidator, and considering the sweep of the language, it is apparent that the suit or other proceedings would be those which may not be connected with the winding-up or dissolution of a society. With regard to the meaning to be given to the expression "other legal proceedings", the matter is no longer res integra, in view of the decision of the Federal Court in Governor General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Limited AIR (33) 1946 Federal Court 16, where it was pointed out that the words "other legal proceeding" in Section 171, Companies Act, 1913, comprise any proceeding by the revenue authorities under Section 46(2), Income-tax Act, and that accordingly, before forwarding the requisite certificate under Section 46(2) to the Collector, which would put the machinery for collection of the arrears of income-tax as arrears of land revenue into motion, the appellant should have applied in the liquidation under Section 171, Companies Act, for leave of the winding-up Court. The provisions of Section 171 of the Companies Act, 1913 were that when a winding-up order has been made or a provisional liquidator has been appointed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court, and subject to such terms as the Court may impose. These provisions are substantially the same as the latter part of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and it is difficult to construe the expression "other legal Proceedings" in a manner which would exclude the proceedings under the Unfair Labour Practices Act, and would obviously be covered by the expression "other legal proceedings".
4. The impugned order passed by the Industrial Court cannot, therefore, be supported. It is set aside and further proceedings before the Industrial Court are quashed. However, since 80 per cent wages have been paid to the respondents under the interim orders passed by the Court, those payments need not be disturbed, and the present order would operate only in respect of the balance that is due from the petitioner to the respondents. Rule absolute in these terms. There will be no order as to the costs of this writ petition.