Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The non-applicant has filed execution proceedings bearing Regular Darkhast No.15/2017. The applicant has filed application below Exh.35 raising objection to the executability of the said award on the ground of jurisdiction.

3. The learned Advocate for the applicant states that since the dispute is an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short hereinafter referred to as "ID Act") the Co-operative Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act. He specifically refers to proviso to Section 91

5. The dispute between the parties in the present case is between employer and employee. However, it is neither in relation to employment or non-employment or terms of employment or conditions of labour.

6. The employee had filed dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act for recovery of amount allegedly misappropriated by the employer. The dispute does not fall within the meaning industrial dispute under Section 2 (k) of the ID Act and consequently, proviso to Section 91 (1) of the MCS Act is not attracted. As regards judgment in the matter of Hariram (supra) in that case a complaint under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 was filed against the employer, which was a registered co-operative society. An objection was raised to the jurisdiction of learned Industrial Court, in view of Section 91 of the MCS Act. The said objection was rejected. The ratio of the said judgment is clearly distinguishable as it deals with a converse case.