IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1087 of 2010 Date of Decision: 31.8.2010 The Bal Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Partap Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. R.S. Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the Caveator-respondent No. 1. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 22.10.2009, rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4300 of 2009 allowing the writ petition of the workman- respondent No. 1 by holding that he is entitled to wages with interest as claimed by him in the claim statement. Liberty has also been granted to the workman-respondent No. 1 to enforce the order through appropriate application before the Administrator of the appellant-Society in winding up. 3. It is pertinent to notice that before the learned Single Judge the appellant-Society sought to raise the issue concerning jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the reference. In that regard reliance was placed LPA No. 1087 of 2010 on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Co-op. Marketing Federation Ltd., 1997 AIR SC 2652. The learned Single Judge has dealt with this argument and placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ambala v. State of Haryana, (1993) 2 SCT 310, to conclude that the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the ID Act’) cannot be divested of its jurisdiction. 4. The question which falls for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the Courts or Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain a dispute by an employee of the Society concerning his service conditions. The aforesaid question in the context of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the 1961 Act’) is no longer res integra. The question has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ambala Central Co-op. Bank Limited Ambala (supra). Referring to the provisions of the ID Act as well as Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, Hon’ble Full Bench reiterated the view earlier taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Rohtak, (1987-1) 91 PLR 77, and proceeded to hold as under:- “7. In view of the consistent decisions referred to above specifying the scope of the authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act. the Civil Court and the Labour Court and the remedies available there-under, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Punjab (supra) does not lay down the law correctly. In this case it was held that the employee of a Co-operative Society having elected his remedy of filing an ap- 2 LPA No. 1087 of 2010 peal under the provisions of the Act and failed there could not get the matter referred through the State to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also held in this case that the decision of the authorities under the Co-op- erative Societies Act Registrar of the Co-operative Societies would operate as res judicata. Since the dispute between the workman and the Bank in the present case related to establish- ment of the Society, it could be referred to the Arbitrator under Section 102 and adjudicated under section 103 of the Act repro- duced above Jurisdiction of the Civil Court would obviously be barred to challenge those decisions. However, Industrial Dis- putes Act dealing with the special subject relating to rights of the workman and the management and the relief provided therein could only be granted by the Court established under the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 128 of the Haryana Coop- erative Societies Act was rightly held to be ultra vires i.e. the remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act could not be denied to the workman of the management, a Co operative Society. In that sense the order of the Registrar passed under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act cannot be treated as a decision final to operate as res judicata in the La- bour Court in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Obviously when the order itself is under chal- lenge the same cannot operate as res judicata. To sum up, it is held that after the Registrar decides the matter between an em- ployee and employer, a Co-operative Society, with regard to the termination of his service under Sections 102 and 103 of the 3 LPA No. 1087 of 2010 Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 the matter could be referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act as an industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. It is fur- ther held that such a decision made by the Registrar under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act would not operate as res judicata in proceedings initiated on reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the Labour Court.” 5. The question whether a dispute concerning services of an employee could be referred to arbitration under Section 55 of the 1961 Act came up for consideration before one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) in the case of Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Morinda v. The Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills Workers Union Registered, 2004 (1) RSJ 10. In that case the question concerning interpretation of Section 55 of the 1961 Act fell for consideration. After referring to various judgments, in para 11 of the judgment it was held that the dispute raised by the employee by filing a civil suit was not covered by the expression ‘touching the business of the Society’ as used in Section 55 of the 1961 Act. The matter traveled to Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the view taken by this Court was upheld and the judgment is reported as Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Workers Union, JT 2006 (6) SC 374. It is, thus, patent that under Section 55 of the 1961 Act no dispute concerning service condition of an employee could be referred to arbitration and that the provision which excluded the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the ID Act were held to be ultra vires by the Full Benches of this Court in Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills’ case (supra) and Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Limited Ambala’s case (supra). Therefore, merely because after inquiry the remedy of appeal or revision have been 4 LPA No. 1087 of 2010 provided by the 1986 Rules, would not result into application of principles of res judicatta by barring the jurisdiction of the Court/Tribunal to raise such a dispute because there has been no adjudication at any judicial forum. 6. The argument based on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in R.C. Tiwari’s case (supra) is wholly fallacious because in that case there was a dispute which had been decided under Section 55(2) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Section 55 of that Act confer power on the Registrar to deal with the disciplinary matters concerning the employees of the Society or a class of Societies including the terms and conditions of their employment. The provision further provided that the Registrar or any officer appointed by him was to decide the dispute concerning disciplinary matters of employees working in the Society or class of Societies including their terms and conditions of employment. The decision reached by the Registrar or its nominee was given finality. It was on the language of the aforesaid provision that Hon’ble the Supreme Court interpreted it to mean that it excludes the remedies of ID Act. However, there is nothing in Section 55 of the 1961 Act or 1986 Rules for us to conclude that the order passed by the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority are to be considered final. Even otherwise, an interpretation which tends towards sustaining jurisdiction of the Civil Court or the Tribunal is preferable to the one which tends to exclude their jurisdiction. On the scheme and language of Section 55 of the 1961 Act read with 1986 Rules, particularly when the matter under the 1961 Act has been decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it is not possible to accept the contention raised by the appellant-Society. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 5 LPA No. 1087 of 2010 (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) August 31, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 6