IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4300 of 2009 Date of decision:22.10.2009 Partap Singh ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gursharan K. Mann, Advocate, for respondent No.2 ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of dismissal of the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming monetary benefits of Rs.2,97,171/-, the amount that was alleged to be payable to the workman towards wages denied to him. The contention in defence to the claim was that the claim before the Labour Court was barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 55 read with Section 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act. The Labour Court upheld the objections taken on behalf of the Society and rejected the petition. 2. The issue that the workman had not been paid his wages was itself not denied and it is again not the contention that the workman had not worked during the said period. It was, on the other hand, stated that Civil Writ Petition No.4300 of 2009 - 2 - the workman had made some embezzlements and some amounts were recoverable. It is not brought on record that any action was taken against the workman for the alleged embezzlement. The entitlement to wages for the period he had worked cannot be denied and the earned wages cannot be forfeited even for misconduct even if it were established. The claim petition is only for the amount of wages that had not been paid to him from the period November, 1993 to December, 1998. The plea that the Labour Court accepted was that by virtue of Section 55 read with Section 82, the remedy of the workman was not before the Labour Court. The issue regarding to the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act was considered in reference to Haryana State Cooperative Societies Act by a Full Bench of this Court in Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Limited Versus State of Haryana and others-1993(1) PLR 424. While dealing with Sections 103 and 104 of the said Act which are in para materia to Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, the Full Bench held that the provisions do not exclude the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 55 which relates to a dispute shall be a dispute touching upon “constitution, management or the business of the Cooperative Society.” The wages that the workman obtained and the dispute that is raised do not come within the purview referred to in Section 55. The objection by the Society therefore that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be eclipsed by the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, is untenable and rejected. Civil Writ Petition No.4300 of 2009 - 3 - 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Society also urges in support of her arguments a decision in R.C.Tiwari Versus State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited and others-AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2652(1). The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the particular provision under the M.P.Co-operative Societies Act that specifically excluded the jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Act and provided for a complete adjudicatory mechanism under the provisions of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act itself. No similar provisions are available in the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act and the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that dealt with a different enactment is wholly misplaced. 4. The learned counsel states that the Company is in the process of winding up and it shall not be possible for the Society to make the payment. The Society has been represented only through its Administrator and the workman's right is hereby affirmed that he is entitled to the wages with interest as claimed by him in the claim statement. The workman shall be at liberty to enforce the order through appropriate application before the Administrator of the Society in winding up. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms. There shall be, however, no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) 22.10.2009 JUDGE sanjeev