IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11287 of 1998 Date of decision:16.07.2009 The Mohindergarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Mohindergarh through its Managing Director. ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. S.S.Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Avtar Yadav, 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 Mohindergarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Mohindergarh, through its Managing Director, (hereinafter called 'the Bank') is before this Court, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Gurgaon, rendering an adjudication in favour of the workman that the termination of employment made on 12.06.1985 without affording to him an opportunity to defend himself, was illegal. The Labour Court found that the charges of defalcation which formed the basis of disciplinary action had not been established and gave a direction for Civil Writ Petition No.11287 of 1998 - 2 - reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages effective from the date of notice dated 08.11.1986. 2. It is an admitted fact that after the order of termination was made, the workman challenged the order of termination by preferring an appeal to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under the relevant provisions of the Haryana State Central Cooperative Bank's Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). Even when the matter was pending before the Registrar, the workman had also independently issued a demand notice and obtained a reference through the Government for an adjudication whether the termination was justified or not. Before the conclusion of proceedings before the Labour Court, the Registrar passed an order on 27.10.1992 setting aside the order of termination made on 27.06.1985, directing compliance of certain statutory provisions relating to the conduct of the enquiry. The matter was taken up by the disciplinary authority again after remand and he passed an order terminating the service of the workman on 30.03.1995. The Labour Court came to pass the award subsequently which is in challenge before this Court. 3. There was essentially two objections which the learned counsel appearing for the Bank projects as relevant for disposal before this Court: i) the workman could not have proceeded with both the remedies namely under the Haryana State Cooperative Bank's Staff Service Rules as well as before the Labour Court. He ought to have elected his reliefs from anyone of the forums; ii) the subject of reference before the Labour Court was an order of termination that was on Civil Writ Petition No.11287 of 1998 - 3 - 27.06.1985, it had been admittedly set aside. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to set aside an order which later came to be superseded by yet another order dated 30.03.1995 and the adjudication by the Labour Court was incompetent to annual the effect of termination made subsequently on 30.03.1995, which was as per the provisions of the relevant Rules. 4. While the remedy of a workman to pursue before the Labour Court in spite of the remedies available before another forum prescribed under the relevant rules may not be completely excluded in view of an authoritative pronouncement of this Court through a Full Bench in Ambala Central Co.op. Bank Limited Ambala Versus State of Haryana and others-1993(2) SCT 310, where the Full Bench held that a mere appeal by the workman dismissed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies would not dis-entitle the workman to move the State Government for reference before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. A decision taken by the Cooperative Society could not be treated as a decision final to operate as res judicata. The Full bench also declared Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act that gave finality to be ultra vires and held that remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act could not be denied to the workman. A subsequent ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in The Bhuna Cooperative Sugar Mill Limited Versus Mohinder Singh and another- 2000(3) LSJS 692, reiterated the principle that gave primacy to the operation of the Industrial Disputes Act and held with reference to Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act that said Act did Civil Writ Petition No.11287 of 1998 - 4 - not exclude the operation of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. The remedy which the workman shall seek to avail by a resort to the Government and seeking for a reference to the Labour Court shall not be taken to be invalid in view of the pronouncement of the Full Bench but in this case, there cannot be dispute about the proposition that a Labour Court cannot traverse beyond a matter of reference. The reference admittedly was the termination order effected on 27.06.1985 and the award which is impugned before this Court makes reference only to the Governor's proceedings in endorsement No.14990- 95, dated 13.04.1987. The order of termination on 27.06.1985 has been admittedly set aside and it has been substituted with another order which has come subsequently on 30.03.1995. It shall be impermissible in collateral proceedings to upturn an order passed by a competent authority constituted under the relevant rules to be rendered invalid or ineffective by the only fact that the Labour Court was also in seisin of the matter. It may be that if sufficient grounds could be made the order subsequently passed on 30.03.1995 itself could be challenged. By seeking a reference from the Government, or at least the workman so believed, he could not foreclose a right of appeal which the statutory Rules make available to him against the order which was passed on 30.03.1995. The award of the Labour Court can not be allowed to stand for it has dealt with the reference which had become stale on a subject over which an adjudication had been made by the Registrar subsequently and remitted to the lower authority. The award of the Labour Court is therefore set aside. Civil Writ Petition No.11287 of 1998 -5 - 6. The workman shall be at liberty to work out independent remedies to challenge the order that was subsequently passed on 30.03.1995 and it shall always be open to him to explain the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court and this High Court as a ground for excluding the period for taking action and the plea of limitation shall not be taken by the management. Subject to this liberty only, the award of the Labour Court is set aside. 7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.07.2009 sanjeev