Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Cooperative Supply And ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 21 November, 2000
ORDER S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 2221 of 1985 and 2222 of 1985 as the same questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions.
2. These writ petitions are filed by the employer-Federation challenging the order under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") passed by the Labour Court. Out of the grounds taken in these writ petitions, one of the grounds is that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is barred in view of Section 128 read with Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Societies Act").
3. Section 128 of the Societies Act provides that save as provided in this Act no Civil Court, Revenue Court, Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of such disputes which are required to be referred to the Arbitrator under Section 102 of the Societies Act. According to section 102-C of the Societies Act any dispute between the society or its committee, agent or employee has to be referred to the Arbitrator. Both these cases were admitted and ordered to be listed after the decision of Civil Court Petition No. 2018 of 1985. Civil Writ Petition 2018 of 1985 was decided by the Full Bench of this court reported as Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and another, AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 386. It has been held by the Full Bench that the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is not taken away in case of disputes between co-operative Society and its . employees touching establishment of Society and the power to decide dispute has not been completely vested in Registrar. It is further held there that section 128 of the Societies Act to the extent to excludes such jurisdiction is unconstitutional. Therefore, question which is to be decided in these petitions is already decided by the Full Bench cited above. Same view has been taken by another Full Bench of this Court in Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Limited v. State of Haryana and others, 1993(2) SCT 310 and a Division Bench of this Court in Bhuna Co- operative Sugar Mills, Bhuna v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar, 1999(3) RSJ 202 : 1999(4) SCT 463 (P&H)(DB). In view of the above, as the question is now finally decided by the Full Bench of this court and a Division Bench, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed as being without merit.
4. No other point has been argued.
5. As a result, these writ petitions are dismissed.
6. Petitions dismissed.