Adhyaksh, Prabandh Samiti, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others

Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—List has been revised. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned standing counsel for Respondent No. 1 None appeared for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

The Petitioner, Adyaksh, Prabandh Samiti, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Limited, district Fatehpur which is a village level primary mill Co-operative Society registered under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 has filed this writ petition before this Court assailing the award dated 14.4.1993 published on 15.10.1993 by which the Respondent No. 1 allowed the Adjudication Case No. 47 of 1990 setting aside the termination of service of Respondent No. 4 and reinstating him in service with full back wages.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised only one submission before this Court that the award passed by the Respondent No. 1 is totally without jurisdiction in view of the fact that provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the employees of Co-operative Societies registered under Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Addl. Labour Commissioner and Others,

Learned standing counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the impugned award is based on relevant consideration and supported by cogent reasons and does not call for any interference by this Court. He however, failed to show whether Respondent No. 1 had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and to adjudicate upon the same on merits by passing the impugned award.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Apex Court after considering the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act in paras 61 and 64 of its judgment in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) has held as under :

The general legal principle in interpretation of statutes is that ''the general Act should lead to the special Act.'' Upon this general principle of law, the intention of the U. P. Legislature is clear, that the special enactment U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 alone should apply in the matter of employment of Co-operative Societies to the exclusion of all other Labour Laws. It is a complete code in itself as regards employment in co-operative societies and its machinery and provisions. The general Act the U.P.I.D. Act, 1947 as a whole has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the U.P.C.S. Act. This is also clear from necessary implication that the Legislature could not have intended ''head-on-conflict and collision'' between authorities under different Acts. In this regard reference can be made to decisions of this Court in the case of Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (supra) where this Court observed that:

Applying these tests, we have no doubt at all that the dispute covered by the first issue referred to the Industrial Tribunal in the present cases could not possibly be referred for decision to the Registrar u/s 61 of the Act. The dispute'' related to alteration of a number of conditions of service of the workmen which relief could only be granted by an Industrial Tribunal dealing with an industrial dispute. The Registrar, it is clear from the provisions of the Act, could not possibly have granted the reliefs claimed under this issue because of the limitations placed on his powers in the Act itself. It is true that Section 61 by itself does not contain any clear indication that the Registrar cannot entertain a dispute relating to alteration of conditions of service of the employees of a registered society, but the meaning given to the expression "touching the business of the society", in our opinion, makes it very doubtful whether a dispute in respect of alteration of conditions of service can be held to be covered by this expression. Since the word "business" is equated with the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society, and since it has been held that it would be difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects, such as laying down the conditions of service of its employees, can be said to be a part of its business, it would appear that a dispute relating to conditions of service of the workmen employed by the society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the society. Further, the position is clarified by the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 62 of the Act which limit the power to be exercised by the Registrar, when dealing with a dispute referred to him u/s 61, by a mandate that he shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and bye-laws. On the face of it, the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws could not possibly permit the Registrar to change conditions of service of the workmen employed by the society. For the purpose of brining facts to our notice in the present appeals, the Rules framed by the Andhra Pradesh Government under the Act and the bye-laws of one of the Appellant Banks have been placed on the paper books of the appeals before us. It appears from them that the conditions of service of the employees of the Bank have all been laid down by framing special bye-laws. Most of the conditions of service, which the workmen want to be altered to their benefit, have thus been laid down by the bye-laws, so that any alteration in those conditions of service will necessarily require a change in the bye-laws. Such a change could not possibly be directed by the Registrar when, u/s 62 (4) of the Act, he is specifically required to decide the dispute referred to him in accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws. It may also be noticed that a dispute referred to the Registrar u/s 61 of the Act can even be transferred for disposal to a person who may have been invested by the Government with powers in that behalf, or may be referred for -disposal to an arbitrator, when deciding the dispute will also be governed by the mandate in Section 62 (4) of the Act, so that he will also be bound to reject the claim of the workmen which is nothing else than a request for alteration of conditions of service contained in the bye-laws. It is thus clear that in respect of the dispute relating to alteration of various conditions of service, the Registrar or other person dealing with it u/s 62 of the Act is not competent to grant the relief claimed by the workmen at all. On the principle laid down by this Court in the case of the Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., therefore, it must be held that this dispute is not a dispute covered by the provisions of Section 61 of the Act. Such a dispute is not contemplated to be dealt with u/s 62 of the Act and must, therefore, be held to be outside the scope of Section 61.

Further this Court observed in R.C. Tiwari v. M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. (supra), that :

He also places reliance on Section 93 of the Societies Act which states that nothing contained in the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, the M. P. Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act, 1950 shall apply to a Society registered under this Act. By necessary implication, application of the Act has not been excluded and that therefore, the labour court has jurisdiction to decide the matter. We find no force in the contention. Section 55 of the Societies Act gives power to the Registrar to deal with disciplinary matters relating to the employees in the Society or a class of Societies including the terms and conditions of employment of the employees. Where a dispute relates to the terms of employment, working conditions, disciplinary action taken by a society, or arises between a Society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him, not below the rank of Assistant Registrar, shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees. As regards, power u/s 64, the language is very wide, viz., "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force any dispute touching the constitution, a management or business of s Society or a liquidation of a Society shall be referred to the Registry by any of the parties to the dispute. "therefore, the dispute relating to the management or business of the Society is very comprehensive as repeatedly held by this Court. As a consequence, special procedure has been provided under this Act. Necessarily, reference u/s 10 of the Societies Act stands excluded. The judgment of this Court arising under Andhra Pradesh Act has no application to the facts for the reason that under that Act the dispute did not cover the dismissal of the servants of the Society which the Act therein was amended.

Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra); Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and Anr. (supra); State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullunder and Ors. (supra) and U. P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr. (supra).

62...........

63...........

We, are therefore, of the view that the Assistant Labour Commissioner''s jurisdiction was wrongly invoked and his order dated 15.3.2003 u/s 6H, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is without jurisdiction and hence null and void and it can be observed that, in view of the said general legal principle, it is immaterial whether or not the Government has enforced Section 135 (U.P.C.S. Act) because, in any case the said provision (Section 135) had been included in the Act only by way of clarification and abundant caution.

For the aforesaid reason, I have no hesitation in holding that the ratio of the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) applies to the facts and circumstances of this case with full force, and I have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the employees of Co-operative Societies Act who are governed by the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The impugned award dated 14.4.1993 is therefore, totally without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

The writ petition is allowed. The award dated 14.4.1993, passed by Respondent No. 1, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) is set aside.