AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Mathur, Ag. C.J.
The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the award dated April 30, 1984 (Annexure G) passed by the Labour Court may be quashed.
The brief facts giving rise to this petition are thus: The petitioner Dhar Jilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is a Co-operative Society constituted and registered under the M.P Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner-Bank is authorised to carry on banking business and falls in the class of Land Development Banks. The respondent No. 1 is the Labour Court constituted u/s 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act). The Bank being constituted as a Co-operative Society, is governed and regulated by the provision of the Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. Section 55 of the Act authorises the Registrar of the Cooperative societies to frame Rules governing the terms and conditions of the employment in the societies registered under the Act of 1960. Subsection (2) of Section 55 of the said Act authorises the Registrar to decide the disputes between the Society and its employees with regard to termination of services etc., and the decision of the Registrar is binding on the Society and the employee concerned. In exercise of the powers conferred u/s 55(1) of the Act, the Registrar has framed rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in Societies falling under the Class Land Development Banks and these rules have statutory force. The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Bank by his order dated March 8, 1976 terminated the services of the respondent No. 3 under Rule 17 of the Service Rules. The respondent No. 3 did not raise any dispute before the Registrar, Co-operation Societies u/s 55(2) of the Act about termination of his service within the prescribed time. The respondent No. 3 made repeated approach to the management of the petitioner- Bank for being taken back in service. Eventually the Board of Directors of the Bank decide to re-employ the respondent No. 3 on cretan conditions and accordingly the management of the petitioner- Bank issued a letter dated May 12, 1978 stating that the Board of Directors of the petitioner- Bank had decided to re- employ the respondent No. 3 on certain terms and conditions set out in the letter and that he may submit his joining report if he was willing to join on those conditions. Copy of the letter has been placed on record as Annexure B. In response to the said letter, the respondent No. 3 submitted his joining report on May 13, 1978. The respondent No. 3 having joined on May 13, 1978 continued to serve the petitioner- Bank without any protest. However after joining, he started making demands for the wages during the periods he was not working and he disputed that his earlier termination was illegal and amounted to victimization.
Dhar Unit of the M.P. Bank Employees'' Association took the matter on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and they made an application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer for deciding the dispute. The Asst. Labour Commissioner-Conciliation Officer took up the matter for conciliation, but on failure, he made a report to that effect to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 10 of the I.D. Act, made a reference to the first respondent i.e. Labour Court and the reference was registered. The respondent No. 3 filed his statement of claim and the petitioner- Bank submitted his written statement. The respondent No. 1- Labour Court after framing the issues on the basis of the statement of claim and the written statement, recorded the evidence of both the parties. At the hearing, the petitioner bank raised a question that the reference and the proceedings consequent thereto were without jurisdiction as the matter was governed by Section 55 of the Act and the respondent No. 3 was bound to raise a dispute before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Sub-section (2) of Section 55 of the Act, and the Registrar alone had Jurisdiction to decide the matter. It was contended that the provision of the I.D. Act is not applicable and the Labour Court cannot decide this dispute as it had no jurisdiction. It was also contented that Section 55 or at any rate Section 64 of the Act can alone resolve the said dispute. The respondent No. 1 Labour Court by its award dated April 30, 1984 (Annexure G) over- ruled the said contentions of the petitioner-Bank and after holding that the termination of Services of the respondent No. 3 was illegal and improper directed the petitioner Bank to pay the respondent No. 3 all his wages for the period commencing from the date of re-employment i.e. May 13, 1978. It is this award which has been sought to be challenged by the petitioner-Bank by this writ petition.
The principal submission of the petitioner Bank is that since the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act is a self- contained Code and machinery has been provided under this Act to resolve the dispute, therefore the industrial Disputes Act is not applicable and thereby the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. A written statement was filed by the petitioner Bank and the petitioner Bank contested the position and submitted that the respondent No. 3 is an employee of the Co-operative Bank and the Bank being an Industry, therefore the I.D. Act is equally applicable and the award passed by the Labour Court is not without Jurisdiction.
In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter it will be relevant to mention certain provisions of the Act, 1960. Section 55 of the Act deals with the Registrar''s powerto determine conditions of employment in societies which reads as under;
"Section 55; Registrar''s power to determine conditions of employment in Societies.
(1) The Registrar may, from time to time frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable, shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf.
(2) Where a dispute including a dispute regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society 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.
Provided that the Registrar or the Officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned.
Provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded.
In pursuance of Sub-section (2) of Section 55 of the Act the Registrar framed the rules known as Madhya Pradesh Ke Jilla Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sewa (Niyojan Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Sthity) Niyam which has laid down detailed service rules governing the service condition of the respondent No. 3 being the employee of the Bank. The provisions of the I.D. Act are applicable to the workmen of the under-takings. It cannot be disputed that the Land Development Banks are Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Since the Banks are Industry the workmen working therein are workmen as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act. So far as the jurisdiction of the I.D.Act is concerned it cannot be said that I.D. Act has no applicability. But the question is that the employees of the Co-operative bank are also governed by Section 55 of the Act and rules framed thereunder by the Registrar under Sub-section (1) of Section 55 of the Act. Therefore both the provisions i.e I.D Act and Co-operative Societies Act, have applicability in cases of the employees of the Co-operative Banks as both are equally applicable and safeguard the interest of the workmen working therein. But still the problem is that whether one exclude the other or not. As a matter of fact both the Acts provide a forum for redress of the grievances of the employees of the Co-operative Society or Cooperative Bank. Therefore it will not be proper to construe that one exclude the other. Both the provisions of the Act Can harmoniously survive and it will not be proper to hold that one excludes the other. Both the Acts are social legislation for welfare of the employees and it is open for the employee to choose either of the forum. It is not the case that one excludes the other. In Co-operative Societies Act, Section 82 only bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. Section 82 of the Act reads as under:
"Section 82: Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts-
(1) Save as provide in this Act no civil or revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect.
(a) the registration of a society or of bye-laws or of an amendment of a bye-law;
(b) the removal of a committee and the management of the society after such removal;
(c) any dispute required to be referred to the Registrar or his nominee or board or nominees;
(d) any matter concerning the winding up the dissolution of a society.
(2) While a society is being wound up, no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with or instituted against the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose
(3) Save as provided in this Act, no order decision or award made under this Act Shall be questioned in any Court on any ground whatsoever.
A perusal of Section 82 makes it clear that any order passed under this Act, no Civil or Revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction to interfere in the matter, But there is no exclusion of the applicability of the I.D Act. Section 93 of the Act deals with certain other Acts not to apply to Co-operative Societies which reads as under:
"Section 93: Certain other Acts not to apply to Co-operative Societies-
Nothing contained in the Madhya Pradesh Shops ans Establishments Act, 1958 (25of 1958) the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act 1959 (19 of 1959) and the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (27 of 1960) shall apply to a society registered under this Act.
This Section 93 also does not exclude the applicability of the I.D. Act Therefore it will not be properto hold that the provisions of the I.D. Act are excluded from its operation to the employees of the Co-operative Societies or the Co-operative Bank. Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act also makes a provision that if there are any provisions which are inconsistent with the Chapter V-A then this Act will be applicable to the exclusion of other provisions.
Now the question is that when the Bank is an Industry and its employees are workmen then, in that case, the termination or retrenchment of its employees can be resolved by the I.D. Act. But only the provision is that if there are any provision inconsistent with Chapter V-A then such provision shall be excluded. Section 55 of the Act also makes provision for the Welfare of the employees and protect their interest. Therefore on reading both the provisions i.e I.D. Act and Co-operative Societies Act it will emerge that there is no apparent inconsistency in both the provisions and it will not be proper to contend that one excludes the other. In fact it is the choice of the employee that he can resolve the dispute either under the I.D. Act or under the Co-operative Societies Act and seek his remedy by way of award from the Labour Court as well as the employee can resort to the remedy provided u/s 55 of the Act read with rules framed therein to seek redressal of his grievance by referring a dispute to the Registrar. Therefore, both the provisions of the Acts are consistent and it will not be proper to read that one excludes the other. In this view of the matter, I am of the option that it is not correct to contend that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to pass the award in the present case. In this connection a reference may be made to Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. P.R. Mankad and Others, In that case an employee of the State Cooperative Land Development Bank agitated the matter that his services have been wrongly terminated. In that context their Lordships observed:
"A dispute raised by an employee of a co-operative Society for setting aside his removal from service on the ground that it was an act of victimization and for reinstatement in service with back wages is not any dispute which can be resolved by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies nor any dispute touching the business of the society within contemplation of Section 96 of the 1961 Act or Section 54 of the 1952 Act".
In that case, it was held that this dispute cannot be resolved by the Registrar u/s 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act or u/s 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore it was held that the Labour Court alone was competent to do it. But in the present case u/s 55 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act certain rules have been framed by the Registrar. Sub-section (1) of Section 55 of the Act lays down the service conditions and under Sub-section (2) of Section 55, such dispute can be resolved by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. In fact Sub-section (2) of Section 55 lays down that any dispute regarding terms of the employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a Society if arises between the Society and its employee 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. Therefore, in the M.P Co-operative Society Act, the machinery has also been created for resolving the dispute. Therefore the aforesaid decision of thier Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court will not come in the way because there under Gujarat Co-operative Societies and the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, such dispute could not be resolved. But as aganistthis such dispute can be resolved under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act because a specific provision of Section 55 of the Act has been created and u/s 55(1) of the Act, rules have been framed as aforesaid and under Sub-section (2) of Section 55 any person can approach thereof and full relief including reinstatment can be granted by Registrar or person nominated by him not below the rank of Dy. Registrar. As such, in the present case, the provisions of both the Acts can survive and affected party can choose either of the forum under the Act. In that connection, there has been a conflict of views expressed by various decisions of this Court which need to be referred here. First case in this connection arose in the case of R.KM.S. Samiti v. Presiding Officer, CGIT (1975 MPLJ 583) and thier Lordships took the view that there is no repugnancy between the I.D. Act and the M.P. Cooperative Socities Act and both can exist side by side. It is true that this Full Bench decision was not unanimous Tare C.J. as he then was took the view that the provisions of I.D. Act was not applicable. As aganist this, Hon. C.P. Sen and M.L. Malik JJ took the view that both the Acts can exist side by side". It was observed:
"There is no repugnancy between the M.P. Co-operative Act and the I.D. Act and both can exist side by side. Cooperative Act has provided for settlement of different types of disputes than those disputes provided for settlement of different types of disputes than those disputes provided under the I.D. Act. There are no provisions in the Cooperative Act for settlement of collective disputes by reference by appropriate Goverment; no provisions about strike and lock out, lay off and compensation, whereas the I.D. Act did not provide for settlement of individual disputes of an employee. u/s 55(2) of the Co-opreative Act, the registrar has to decide dispute about terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken against the employee in terms of the provision of the Co-operative Act, the rules and bye-laws. Moreover the Co- operative Act is an enactment under Entry No. 32 of the State list regarding Co-operative Society and incidentally it has dealt with its employees about terms of employment, service conditions and disciplinary action. Broadly speaking it is a State Act within the State list and so Article 254(2) is not at all attracted. In any case there is no direct conflict between the two statutes and both occupy different fields and the Co-operative Act is not an exhaustive Code on Industrial Disputes In Ahmedabad M.O. Assn v. I.G. Thakore the Supreme Court held that provisions in Chapter V of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938 are not repugnant to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as there are no provisions for Standing Orders and their changes in the latter Central Act. Therefore both can stand together."
In Sevaram Totaram Pargir v. Board of Revenue (AIR 1983 MP 645 (FB)) a reference was made by a Single Judge, who felt that the decision of this Court in Gwalior District Co-operative Bank, Gwalior v. Ramesh Chandra Mangal relating to the rights of the employees of the Co-operative Bank to seek relief of reinstatement on the dismissal/ removal being illegal needed re-consideration by a Larger Bench. This is how the matter was referred to the Full Bench and the Full Bench after examining the provisions of the Co-operative Soceities Act and the rules framed thereunder came to the conclusion that the Registrar can grant relief of reinstatement in view of the rules which have been framed. Thier Lordships observed that once rules have been framed and they hayestatutory force it is not correct to equate them with the kind of bye-laws framed for working of the Society and thus not having a force of law. It was observed:
"In our opinion the action of removal or dismissal of the employee of a Co-operative Society in contravention of the statutory Rules does entitle the employee to continue in service and the Registrar or his nominee hearing a dispute u/s 55(2) must be held to have jurisdiction to direct reinstatement on a finding that the removal or dismissal is in breach of statutory rules".
In this background thier Lordship found that the termination of petitioner''s serivce was an act of victimisation due to trade union actvities and that the mandatory rules have not been followed and thereby the relief for reinstatement was granted.
In Sahakari Vipnan (Marketing) Sanstha v. Labour Court (1987 MPLJ 31) the subsequent Division Bench of this Court took the view that the Labour Court Jurisdiction is not barred merely because such relief could also be granted by the Registrar u/s 55 of the Act. In Sohanlal v. Guna Central Co-operative Bank (1192 M.P.R.N 258) the division Bench of this Court took the view that the termination of the employee of the Co-operative Society is in contravention of the Act and held that such employee is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 55(2) of the Act or avail the remedy by moving a dispute u/s 2A of the I.D. Act. In Zila Sahkari Bank and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others, the Division Bench of Allahabad Court took the view that the employee of the Co-operative Societies can apporach the Registrar u/s 55(2) of the Act and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. Their Lordships have only referred one judgment given in R.K.M.S., Samiti (supra), but did not consider another Full Bench decision given in Sevaram Totaram Pargir (supra) and also did not consider the two successive decisions of the Division Bench of this Court given in Sahakari Vipanan (M) Sanstha (Supra) and Sohanlal (Supra). Therefore the decision of thier Lordships was per incuriam. The recent decision of this Court given in the case of Sagar Co-op. Milk Producers Union Vs. Ku. Neelofer Anjum and Another, , their Lordships after considering the judgments on the subject have held that the relief to the employees of the Co-operative Societies are not excluded under I.D. Act; therefore the provisions of the I.D. Act will be applicable to the employees of the Co-operative Societies. It was obeserved at P. 474.
"There is no substance in the contention that the Industrial Dispute Act has no application and the workmen should have agitated the disputes before the Registrar u/s 55(2) of the M.P Co-operative Societies Act. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the I.D. Act was not ousted and this was the view taken by the Full Bench."
Therefore survey of all the cases on subject as reproduced above, the consensus of opinion that emerges from the decisions of the Full Bench as well as from the successive judgments, of the Division Bench is that both the Acts can co-existsions as well as successive decisions of the Division Bench it is more than apparent that both the Acts can co-exist as there is no apparent inconsistency between the two. Upshot of the above discussion is that I hold that the award passed by the Labour Court is not without jurisdiction.
Now the next question is that whether the award passed by the Labour Court is valid or not. In the present cases the respondent No. 3''s services were terminated and thereafter he was offered an appointment on cretain conditions that he will not be given the benefit of backwages and if he is willing to join on that condition he can do so. The terms and conditions which were given to the respondent No .3 by letter dated May 12, 1978 (Annexure B), which reads as under:
vkns''k
Jh lun dqekj f}osnh ''] egkohj ekxZ] /kkj �e- iz-�
vkidks lwfpr djus esa vkrk gS fd vf/kdk"k ds lapkyd eaMyus vkidks fuEu ''krksZa ij voxr djus dh Loh�fr iznku dh gSA rnuqlkj vki vf/kdk"k esa viuk Tokfuax izfrosnu izLrqr djsaA
1- ;g fd lsokeqDr dks � � fcuk dke ds osru ugha ds fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij i`u% lsodksa esa fy;k tkrk gSA
2- lsok,a iwoZ fu/kkZfjr osru ij la''kksf/kr osrueku ds vuqlkj ckon lsok fu;ekuqlkj osru Hkkx ,oa eRrs ns; gksxsaA
3- ftl vof/k esa dk;Z ugha fd;k ml vof/k dh okf"kZd osru o`f) ,oa O;ogkj ij fuHkZj jgsaxhA
lgh
izcU/kd ftyk lgdkjh Hkwfe fodkl cSad lfefr] /kkj �e- iz-�
As per this condition the respondent No. 3 was clearly told that he can join the service and he will not be entitled to wages on the principle of "no work no pay". But the Labour Court itself has totally misdirected and taken the view that there was no prohibition for the respondent No. 3 to agitate the matter as no such commitment was given by the respondent No. 3. The view taken by the Labour Court is erroneous on the face of it. The respondent No. 3 was clearly told in terms of the order dated May 12, 1978 (Annexure B) that he will not be entitled to any backwages and he joined the service on the basis of this letter dated May 13, 1978 (Annexure C). Thereafter the respondent No. 3 cannot approbate and reprobate and he cannot get the benefit of full back-wages. Therefore the view taken by the Labour Court does not appear to be justified in the present circumstances of the case.
In the result, I allow the writ petition and quash the award (Annexure G) passed by the Labour Court. The amount of security if any deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioner. No order as to costs.