N n I” u Mm 43$?Fwm , E' LI ' I IlQElEiE Bhun9$hmari Eunkar Eahkari gamiki Mgryaditg Dmwgarg&mn * UEHSUE ~ Prnaiding Qfficgrg Labour Cmurt Rajnandgamn & anather “”* WE ’}!Y?E§!\1I§a T UJ QB Ll S:W E IUNER Ehuneghwari Bunkar Eahkari E$miti Narya$itg QngaPgaDm (MP) Di§tt~ R$jn3 gamm Thraugh itv§ Mawager 1" g acm ., m?!“ Ur mg: mRDEP“ €%_Es.é,:1:xs:a:1 t-«H~-L1;::H. mg E’ligxVITLmhI u 1,1‘ r ”395543" RQBlLCJALf-m53 OF THE: B_FqPvQi\li?iI-l\3"f'§_§:; 1w The Prai iHg Dff”;mvq L‘ H“ £ xr‘tg RAJNENHGm$N (MP) Ehri Rajkmm$w Ganjir QXQ QhPi Gen 1a1 E$Hjir§ EN Ehri Rajkmm$w PHD“ " ‘1 &P5 'Jrgi ‘3 ‘ -H $r D akt R&jmaw n (MPJV eg Nanagar, Bhune31w& ”mnk&v gahnSamitig AFR Versus Preséding Officer, Labour Cour'l' Rajnandgaon & anofher RESPONDENTS Present : Shri Anoop Muzumdar, counsel for The pe1ifioner. None appears for 1'he respondem' No. 2. ORDER (Passed on 29”’ August, zoos) The following ouder of ‘lhe Cour‘l was passed by Sufish K. Agniho'rrl, J. 1. Despi'l'e service, none appears for The respondent No. 2. 2. The undispufed facfs of The case are fhaf fhe pefi'fioner- is a Registered Co-opera'live Socie'iy governed under fhe provisions of fhe Chha‘lfisgorh Co-operu'rive Sociefies Acf, 1960 (for shor‘i ‘The Acf'). Section 55 of fhe Acf provides for Regisfrar's power fo defermine conditions of employmen'r in sociefies. Sub-secfion (2) of sec1'ion 55 provides fhaf where a dispufe regarding Terms of employmenT working condiTions and disciplinary acTion Taken by The 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 v? } @\ binding on 1'he sociew and ifs employees. The dispufe arose be'rween 'rhe pefifioner and The responden‘r No.2 when The service of The responderw No. 2 was ferminafzd by Thé pefifioner Socie'ry vide order dafed 1.6.92. 3. The mu'f'rer was referred f0 'rhe 1'0 +he Labour Cour'f, Rajnandguon ‘under The provisions of 1'he Industrial Dispu'ies Acf, 1947 being Appeal No. 25/10. Act/95 {Ref}. The Labour Cour‘r passed-fhe award ex—por'ie and directed reinsi'aiemen‘i' of fhe respondeni No. 2 wi'i'h full back wages by order dafed 24.3.1998 (Annexure P/1). 4. Learned counsel appearing for ‘l'he pe'ri‘lioner submits 'rhai' 'lhe Labour Cour'l' has no jurisdic'l’ion under The provisions of fhe Indus'h-ial Dispufes Acf, 1947. The Regisfrar alone is compefem’ fo decide 'ihe dispufe befween fhe Co-opera'l'ive Sociefy and i'rs employees in case of ‘ihe dispufe arising ouf of employmenl‘, working conditions and disciplinary acfion. Thus, 'i'he award passed by 'rhe Labour Cour'l is a nulli‘ly. 5. The Supreme Courf in fhe case of R.C. Tiwari Vs. MP. Sfai'e Comparative Marketinq Federation L‘i'd. and ofhers‘ observed in para 3, as under :- “Para 3.~..‘......Secfion 55 of 'ihe Socie'l'ies Acf gives power f0 The Regisfrar to deal with disciplinary matters relating to the employees in the Society or a class of Societies including the terms and conditions of employment of the employees. Where a dispute relates to the terms of employment, working conditions, disciplinary action taken by a society, or arises between a 5ociety 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 is employees. As regards power under Section 64, the language is very wide, viz., "Notwifhsfnnding any‘l'hing contained in any other law for me Time being in farce any dispufe Touching The consfifufion, g managemen‘i' or business of a socie'fy or fhe iiquida'l’ion of a Socie‘ty shun be referred To The Registry by any of ’rhe parties +0 the dispu‘re.” Therefore. fhe dispufe relufing *0 The managemen'r cr‘business of fhe Sociefy is very comprehensive as repeafediy held by fhis Com-f. As a consequence, special procedure has been provided under This ACT. Necessariiy, reference under SecTion 10 of The Societies AcT sTnnds exciuded............." 6. The Supreme CourT in The case of Saqarmol Vs. DisTT. Sohkari Kendriye Bank LTd., Mondsour and anothera observed in para 3, as under :- “Poru 3-..~..~..There can be no doubT ThcxT The provisions of The CenTml ACT, " namely, The Indusfrial Dispu'les AcT, 1947 did noT apply To The employees of The respondenT cooperaTive bank and, Therefore, The only quesTion which could arise was of The ovoilobiii‘l'y of The remedy eiTher under The Modhya Pradesh CooperoTive SocieTies AcT, 1960 or under The Modhya Pradesh IndusTrial Rela‘rions AcT, 1960. IT is for This quesTion, if iT were To arise, ThoT The effecT of SecTion 93 of The Madhya Pradesh Coopero'rive SocieTies AcT would come in. However, no occasion arose for consideraTion of This quesTion in The presenT case inasmuch as The oppelionT did noT resorT To The remedy eiTher under The Madhyu Pmdesh CooperaTive SocieTies AcT or under The Madhya Pradesh IndusTrial RelaTions ACT, buT chose The remedy of a reference under SecTion 10 of The IndusTriai DispuTes AcT, 1947 which is cieariy inapplicable. The only quesTion before The High CourT was The compeTence of a reference under SecTion 10 of The IndusTriai DispuTes AcT, 1947 and noT The availabiiiTy of The remedy under The Madhya Pradesh Coopera'l'ive SocieTies AcT or The Madhya Pradesh IndusTrial RelaTions ACT. The view @ Taken by The High Court The? The reference under Section 10 of fhe Indusm'al Disputes Act, 1947 was incompefem‘ and, fherefore, fhe mrd maée Therein a nuHi‘ry, does noi’ suffer from ‘arry’ infirmify ........... " 7'. In View of ‘rhe dicfa {aid down by fhe Supreme Cour'r in fhe aforementioned cases, H is we“ esfabiished fha'r no reference under Seci'ion 10 of fhe Indusirioi Dispufes Acf, 1947 is mainminoble before The Labour- Cour‘r. . 8. Accordingiy, ihe impugned award passed by fhe Labour Courf is o nuiiiw and deserves 'ro be quashed. The wrif pefifion is allowed accordingly. No order as fo cosfs. ,‘WH‘“’ satish . K- Agr,“ 'hotri ‘ Judge I, Bablu 10m 1997 supreme com 2s52) 2K1997} 9 Supreme Cour? Cases 354}