Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-1), rendered by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala-respondent No.1, whereby, reference has been returned unanswered, on account of non-maintainability, the workman-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, as cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Industrial Tribunal erred in holding that the reference was not maintainable, in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka 2002 (8) SCC 481, and the notification dated 08.09.2005, issued by the Haryana Government, coupled with notifications dated 1 of 5 07.05.2013 and 02.03.2015. He further submits that since there was apparent violation of Sections 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, 'the Act'), the learned Industrial Tribunal was under

obligation to adjudicate the reference on merits. Even otherwise, the workman-petitioner was well within his rights to raise an industrial dispute, rather than, availing the remedy to file an appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge concerned, as has wrongly been held by the learned Industrial Tribunal. To substantiate his arguments, he places reliance upon an order dated 06.02.2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench in a bunch of petitions, lead case being CWP-11288-2016 (Sunil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala and others).
2. It appears that the Labour Court as well as learned Sin- gle Judge were oblivious of the decision of this Court rendered by the Full Bench in the case of 'Ambala Central Co-op. Bank Lim- ited Ambala Vs State of Haryana and others', 1993(2) S.C.T. 310, where similar dispute was adjudicated upon by holding thus:-
"7. In view of the consistent decisions referred to above specifying the scope of the authorities under the Coopera- tive Societies Act. the Civil Court and the Labour Court and the remedies available there-under, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Punjab, (supra), does not lay down the law correctly. In this case it was held that the employee of a Co-operative Society having elected his remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of the Act and failed there could not get the matter referred through the State to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act. It was also held in this case that the decision of the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act, Registrar of the Co-operative Societies) would operate as res judicata. Since the dispute between the workmen 3 of 5 and the Bank in the present case related to establishment of the Society, it could be referred to the Arbitrator under Section 102 and adjudicated under section 103 of the Act reproduced above. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court would obviously be barred to challenge those decisions. How- ever, Industrial Disputes Act dealing with the special sub- ject relating to rights of the workman and the management and the relief provided therein could only be granted by the Court established under the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act was rightly held to be ultra vires i.e. the remedies available un- der the Industrial Disputes Act could not be denied to the workman of the management, a Co operative Society. In that sense the order of the Registrar passed under the pro- visions of the Co-operative Societies Act cannot be treated as a decision final to operate as res judicata in the Labour Court in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Obviously when the order itself is under challenge the same cannot operate as res judicata. To sum up, it is held that after the Registrar decides the matter be- tween an employee and employer, a Co-operative Society, with regard to the termination of his service under Sections 102 and 103 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 the matter could be referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act as an industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. It is further held that such a decision made by the Registrar under the Haryana Co- operative Societies Act would not operate as res judicata in proceedings initiated on reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the Labour Court.

8. The matter be put up before the Division Bench for fur- ther proceedings."

3. It was held by the Full Bench that remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be excluded by any other special law. Therefore, it is available to the workman, irrespec- tive of availability of other alternative remedy. As such, it ap-

4 of 5 pears that the decision rendered by the Labour Court as well as learned Single Bench, is per incuriam the view of Full Bench in the case 'Ambala Central Co-op. Bank Limited Ambala Vs State of Haryana and others', 1993(2) S.C.T. 310 .