Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 767 (RAJ)

Purshottam Lal v. Judge, Labour Court

1995-08-24

V.K.SINGHAL

body1995
Honble SINGHAL, J. – The Petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 5th of July, 1991 in which the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that a remedy lies with the petitioner under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act and the dispute in question is beyond the jurisdiction of any other court. In the present case, the petitioner was working on the post of L.D.C. with Bharatpur Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited, Bharatpur. A charge-sheet alleging the charges of embazzlement was issued to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer made the enquiry and on that basis the services of the petitioner were terminated. Against the order of dismissal petitioner raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Bharatpur. The matter was referred by the State Government U/S 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. After the reference was made to the Labour Court, a contention was raised that a remedy is provided U/S 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. The learned Judge, Labour Court came to the conclusion that as per provision under Section 75 of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act only the Registrar so appointed under this Act is competent to hear the disputes regarding management of society and other disputes which are detailed in this Section, and no other Court can hear these disputes. (2). Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The provision of Section 75(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act stood as under:– ``75(3): If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. (3). On the bare perusal of the said provision it is evident that if any dispute arises or is referred to the Registrar, the decision by the Registrar shall be final. Such decision cannot be questioned in any court. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not barred. The workman has two remedies available to him. One is under Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and the other under the Industrial Disputes Act. Such decision cannot be questioned in any court. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not barred. The workman has two remedies available to him. One is under Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and the other under the Industrial Disputes Act. It may be in a particular case that if once a particular remedy is availed of, then it will not be proper or desirable for the other court to go into that question. The order which has been passed by the Registrar in respect of the dispute U/S 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act is not a subject matter for decision by any other Court and the remedy availed under the Cooperative Societies Act has to be consi- dered as final. (4). The Industrial Disputes Act, which is primarily meant for the benefit of the workman and as beneficial social legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to restrict the power of the Labour Court in adjudicating a dispute which has been referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Act by the State Government. The State Government could have considered at the time of making the reference as to whether the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is proper one or could be availed of, but once the reference is made, the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate such dispute. There is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act, which empowers the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribu- nal to refuse to adjudicate a dispute which has been referred by the State Government on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the order passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with the Rules. In this regard the judgment of Gujarat State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. P.R. Nanded (1), is also relevant wherein the Apex Court obser- ved as under:– ``The relief claimed by him is of reinstatement in service with back wages. The rights and reliefs which he is claiming could not be determined and granted by a Civil Court in a suit. As Luding Teller puts it, ``A Court of Law proceeds on the footing that no power exists in the Courts to make contracts for people and the parties must make their own contracts. The rights and reliefs which he is claiming could not be determined and granted by a Civil Court in a suit. As Luding Teller puts it, ``A Court of Law proceeds on the footing that no power exists in the Courts to make contracts for people and the parties must make their own contracts. The Courts reach their limit of power when they enforce contracts which the parties had made, ``(Quoted with approval in Rohtas Industries Ltd. vs. Brijnandan Pandey(5). The right claimed by the second respondent are those which are conferred on workmen and employees under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, to ensure social justice. Such rights which do not stem from the contract of employment can be enforced only in the Labour Court constituted under the B.I.R. Act. The Labour Court is competent to grant the relief of reinstatement claimed by the respondent, while in view of section 21(b) of the Specific Reliefs Act, then in force, the Civil Court was not competent to grant that relief. (5). From the above observations of the Apex Court, it is clear that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate the dispute and it is only the jurisdiction of Civil Court which has been excluded. (6). The Industrial Disputes Act is a Central Act. Section 10 of the Act of 1947 provides that the appropriate Government is of opinion that if any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing for further dispute to a board for promoting a settlement thereof, or refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry: or refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication, or refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant, to the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication. (7). From the provision of law, it is clear that Schedule Second and Third refer to the following matters:– THE SECOND SCHEDULE 1. The propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under the standing orders; 2. The application and interpretation of standing orders; 3. (7). From the provision of law, it is clear that Schedule Second and Third refer to the following matters:– THE SECOND SCHEDULE 1. The propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under the standing orders; 2. The application and interpretation of standing orders; 3. Discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of, or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed; 4. Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege; 5. Illegality or otherwise of a strike or lock-out and 6. All matters other than those specified in the Third Schedule. THE THIRD SCHEDULE. 1. Wages, including the period and mode of payment. 2. Compensatory and other allowances. 3. Hours of work and rest intervals; 4. Leave with wages and holidays; 5. Bonus, profit, sharing, provident fund and gratuity; 6. Shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders; 7. Classification by grades; 8. Rules of discipline; 9. Rationalisation; 10. Retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment; and 11. Any other matter that may be prescribed. (8). The Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is the State Act and in spite of the language used in Section 75(1) notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force Neither this Section override the provisions of the Central Act nor it can take away the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well established principle of law that an Act of State Legislature cannot override the provisions of Central Act of Parliament and, therefore, inspite of using the words ``notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force in Section 75(1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 it cannot override the provisions of the Central Act Industrial Disputes Act. (9). In view of the above matter, the writ petition is allowed and the Labour Court is directed to determine the dispute which has been referred to under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The award dated 5th July, 1991 is set aside.