Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sahakari Vipnan (Mkt.) Sanstha ... vs Labour Court And Ors. on 21 August, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1994)IIILLJ906MP
ORDER Sohani, J.
1. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows:
The petitioner is a Marketing Co-operative Society registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred by Section 55(1) of the Act). The Registrar Co-operative Societies, had framed Rules governing terms and conditions of employment in a society registered under the Act. Sometime in the year 1979, the Committee of the Society was superseded by the Registrar, and the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, District Khargone, was appointed as the officer-in-charge. In exercise of powers conferred by Rule 17 of the Rules, the officer-in-charge terminated the services of respondent No. 3, an employee of the Society. Respondent No. 3 thereupon made an application for conciliation before the Government Labour Officer but as the conciliation failed, the Conciliation Officer made a report in that behalf to respondent No. 2, the Labour Commissioner. In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, respondent No. 2 made a reference to respondent No. 1, the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute as to whether the termination of the services of respondent No. 3 was lawful and whether respondent No. 3 was entitled to any relief in that behalf. The reference was registered by the Labour Court as Reference No. 21/82(ID). Respondent No. 3 filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court. The petitioner resisted the claim of respondent No. 3 inter alia on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The objection regarding jurisdiction raised by the petitioner was overruled by the Labour Court, which made an award that the termination of services of respondent No. 3 was illegal. The Labour Court directed the petitioner Society to reinstate respondent No. 3 with back wages. Aggrieved by the award made by the Labour Court, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. The only contention raised by Shri Chaphekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the award made by the Labour Court was vitiated because the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by respondent No. 3, an employee of a Co-operative Society, as the dispute was exclusively triable by the Registrar under the provisions of the Act. In reply, Shri Sethi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, contended that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute and that no case for any interference with the award was made out.
4. The short question for consideration in this case is whether a Labour Court constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute with regard to termination of services or an employee of the petitioner, which is a Marketing Co-operative Society registered under the Act.
5. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that a dispute regarding termination of services of an employee of a Co-operative Society was a dispute touching the management of that society and that such a dispute was exclusively triable by Registrar by virtue of the provisions of Section 64(1)(a) read with Section 82(1) of the Act. It was contended that as laid down by the Supreme Court in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and Ors., etc. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Ors. (AIR 1970 SC 245 : 1969-II Lab LJ 698) if a dispute could be competently decided by the Registrar, the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. would be barred.
6. Before we proceed to deal with the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it would be necessary to turn to the provisions of Sections 64 and 82(1) of the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 64(1)(a) of the Act are as follows:
"64. Disputes - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following:
(a) a society, its committee, any past committee, any past or present officer, any past or present agent, any past or a present servant or a nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the society or the liquidator of the society;
....."
Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act provides that save as provided in the Act, no Civil or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute required to be referred to the Registrar under the Act. The question then that arises for consideration is whether a dispute regarding termination of services of an employee of a Co-operative Society and the relief of reinstatement prayed in that behalf is required to be referred to the Registrar under the provisions of Section 64 of the Act. Now so far as the applicability of the provisions of Section 64 of the Act is concerned, the matter is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in The Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited v. P.R. Manhad and Anr. (AIR 1979 SC 1203). While construing similar provisions under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1962, the Supreme Court held that the Compulsory arbitration by the Registrar on a reference under that Act was only a substitute for adjudication of disputes of a civil nature normally tried by Civil Courts and that the legislature never intended to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal to determine claims and industrial disputes which could not be adjudicated by the ordinary Civil Courts. The Supreme Court observed that though a Labour Court was competent to grant the relief of reinstatement claimed by an employee, the Civil Court was not competent to grant that relief in view of the provisions of Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court further held that a dispute raised by an employee of a Co-operative Society seeking the relief of reinstatement on account of wrongful termination of services was not covered by the expression "any dispute" occurring in Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. Now the relevant provisions of Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act are substantial similar to the provisions of Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It must, therefore, be held, following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, that the dispute raised by respondent No. 3 in the instant case is not covered by the expression "any dispute" occurring in Section 64 of the Act and hence, the provisions of Section 64 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that so far as the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 was concerned, even if Section 64 of the Act was not attracted in the instant case, Section 55(2) of the Act was attracted and that under the provisions of Section 55(2) of the Act, any dispute regarding disciplinary action was required to be referred to the Registrar. It was urged that under Section 55(2) of the Act, the Registrar had jurisdiction to grant the relief of reinstatement as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Sevaram Totaram Pargir v. Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwalior and Anr. (1983 M.P.L.J. 645). It was, therefore, contended that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act was barred. It is, therefore, necessary to examine this contention.
8. To appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, it has to be noted that the bar provided by Section 82 of the Act is to the jurisdiction of a Civil or Revenue Court and not to the jurisdiction of an Industrial Court to decide a dispute required to be referred to the Registrar under the Act. It is no doubt true that a Full Bench of this Court had held in 1983 M.P.L.J. 645 (supra) that a Registrar hearing a dispute under Section 55(2) of the Act has jurisdiction to grant the relief of reinstatement in case of illegal removal of an employee. From this decision, however, it does not necessarily follow that the jurisdiction of a Labour Court to adjudicate an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the case of a Co-operative Society to which the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable is taken away. The provisions of Section 55(2) of the Act are general in their application to all societies registered under the Act while the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable, unless excluded by any other Act, to the employees of an industry. The decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1970 S.C. 245 (supra) has to be read in the context of the facts arising in that case. As held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 1203 (supra) the law of industrial disputes or industrial relations is a special law dealing with rights and obligations specially created by it. It cannot be disputed that in the instant case, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable in the case of the petitioner Society, which is a Marketing Society and that Respondent No. 3, an employee of the petitioner Society has a right under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to raise an industrial dispute arising out of termination of his services. If such an industrial dispute is referred to a Labour Court for adjudication under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the jurisdiction of a Labour Court to make an award cannot be held to be barred merely because the employee could have also got that relief from the Registrar under Section 55(2) of the Act had he referred the dispute to the Registrar within 30 days of the order appealed against, as provided by the proviso to Section 55(2) of the Act. It is significant to note, as already observed by us, that under the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, what has been barred is the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and a Revenue Court in respect of matters required to be referred to a Registrar under the Act. The jurisdiction of a Labour or Industrial Court has not been barred under the provisions of Section 82 of the Act. The contention that by virtue of the provisions of Section 55(2) of the Act, an employee of a Marketing Co-operative Society cannot raise an industrial dispute before a Labour Court, cannot be upheld.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 93 of the Act and contended that the provisions of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 are not applicable to a society registered under the Act, by virtue of Section 93 of the Act and that this provision was a pointer to indicate that industrial law was not intended to be made applicable to a society registered under the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sagar Motor Transport Karmachari Union, Sagar v. Amar Kamgar Passenger Transport Co. Co-operative Society, Sagar, M.P. & Another (AIR 1969 M.P. 64). Now the decision in AIR 1969 M.P. 46 (supra) has been overruled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Rashtriya Khadan Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Durg v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur and Ors. (1975 M.P.L.J. 583). The provisions of Section 93 of the Act, which specify the Acts, which are not applicable to Societies registered under the Act, do not include the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it is not permissible for a Court to rewrite that provision in such a way as to include the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within the ambit of Section 93 of the Act. As held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 1203 (supra), the law of industrial disputes or industrial relations is a special law dealing with rights and obligations specially created by it. In this connection, the following observations of the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 1203 (supra) are pertinent.
"The matter can be looked at from another angle also. The law of industrial disputes or industrial relations is a special law dealing with rights and obligations specially created by it. As against this the provision in Section 54 of the Act of 1925. Section 96 of the Act of 1961 is a general provision. In accordance with the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, therefore, nothing in these general provisions can derogate from B.I.R. Act and the Co-operative Societies Act must yield to the special provisions in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, whenever a dispute clearly comes within the language of the latter Act".
10. It was, however, urged on behalf of the petitioner that the view we are taking regarding jurisdiction of a Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to adjudicate an industrial dispute raised by an employee of a Marketing Co-operative Society would lead to a very anomalous position. The argument was that whereas in the case of a society, to which the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were applicable, the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute raised by an employee, no such jurisdiction would vest in a Labour Court in the case of a Marketing Co-operative Society, which would not be governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by virtue of the provisions of Section 110 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The fallacy in the argument so advanced is that the provisions of Section 110 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 which provides that nothing in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, barring certain provisions shall apply to any industry, to which the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, I960 is applied is not attracted in the case of any society registered under the Act by virtue of Section 93 of the Act. Section 110 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 forms part of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 the whole of which, as provided by Section 93 of the Act, is not applicable to a society registered under the Act. Therefore, the anomalous position, as depicted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would never occur.
11. Having given our anxious consideration to the matter, we have come to the conclusion that the Labour Court in the instant case had jurisdiction to make the award.
12. No other point was urged.
13. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. The amount of security deposit, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.