IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.275 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.3.2010 Sukhbir Singh -----Appellant Vs. The Sonepat Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sonepat and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for respondent No.1. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the workman against judgment of learned Single Judge setting aside the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with back wages. 2. The workman was employed as Secretary of the Cooperative Bank and was governed by the Haryana State Central Cooperative Banks Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘the 1975 rules’). He was served with charge sheets alleging misappropriation of funds and negligence in performance of duties and after enquiry, he was LPA No.275 of 2008 (O&M) dismissed from service. Departmental appeal was dismissed and writ petition against order of the appellate authority was dismissed as withdrawn. The workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court held that the departmental enquiry was vitiated and accordingly, directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The management filed a writ petition against the award, inter-alia, on the ground that the matter being governed by statutory rules, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the I.D.Act’) could not apply as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.C.Tewari v. M.P.State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited and others, AIR 1997 SC 2652 and Sagarmal v. District Sahkari Kendriya Bank Limited, Mandsaur and another, (1997) 9 SCC354. This plea was upheld by learned Single Judge and the award was set aside on that ground without going into merits. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the workman submits that the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.C.Tewari and Sagarmal stand explained by subsequent judgment in 2 LPA No.275 of 2008 (O&M) Dharappa v. Bijapur Cooperative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited, (2007) 9 SCC 109, wherein it has been held that there is no repugnancy between the statutory rules and the I.D. Act. ‘Cooperative Societies’ fell under Entry 32 of List II, while ‘Industrial and Labour disputes’ fell under Entry 22 of List III and both the Acts could co-exist. The Industrial Act was not thus excluded by the Cooperative law. 5. Learned counsel for the management did not dispute the applicability of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharappa. 6. Accordingly, judgment of learned Single judge cannot be sustained and is set aside. Since the other issues have not yet been decided by learned Single Judge, let the writ petition be now listed for hearing on merits before the appropriate Single Bench as per roster on 5.4.2010 as prayed. 7. The appeal is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 29, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3