BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGHVCOURT OF CHHATI'TSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIOM’JQHn ‘ 03 OF 2007 (5.3.) $ /Chhuikhadan Bunkar Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Through: its President, PETITION E R VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Judge (Under I. D. Act), Labour Court Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Udayram Dewangan, aged.v about 34 years, Son of Late Shri Manohar Ram Dewangan, Resident of Naya Amapara, Azad Chowk, V'Near Mahajan Niwas, Ward No.12, Durg (C.G.). {V WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . .W I ’ »,.4 i “M HIG‘H CGURT OF CHHATTI3GARH : BILASF’UR Sinqie Bench: Hon’bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava: J'. WRIT PETiTiON (L! NG‘03iG7 PET.T.GNER Chhuikhadan Bunkér Sahkari $amiti Maryadit Versus RE$PGNDENT§ Judge (Under the iDAct) Labour Court WRIT\ PHIHON UNDER ARTIcL: 22b O!- THE CGNSHUTiaN OF INDIA Fresenr - Shn PKG. ”wan, aemorCou apd anyher caunse! fer the petitioner. nsei along with Shri $hashi Bhushan, ' Shri J.S. Baraik, coumei for respcnde‘nt No.2. ORAL GRDER (Passed on 5"' of July, 2011 ) This petition has been fiied by the petitioner assaiiing correctness and validity of award dated 16H 0/06 passed by the Labour Court, Rainandgaon. 2. Facs in brief, necessary for decision of the controversy invoived in this petition are that respondent No.2 appointed as Production As'sistant in the year 1995 and working in the services of the petitioner’s society. The Society terminated the services of respondent No2 vide its order dated 10/1 1/03 Respondent No z raised rndustnai dispute and reference of dispute was made by the Deputy Labour Lommissloner vrde his rererence dated 13I09/O4 to the Vide impugned award dated 16/10/06 the Labour Court has passed an award of reinstatement in favour of respondent No.2 aiong with 60% back wages, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon. fut t 3. The sole ground on which the correctness and vaiidity of the award has been chaiienged by the petitioner is that the impugned award is without jUrisdiction and competence under the iaw. 4. Learned senior counsei for the petitioner i Society submitted that respondent No.2 was an empioyee of the petitioner — a Cooperative Society. ‘ in his submission, an employee of a Cooperative Society is governed by the provisions of Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act and Section 55 (‘2) of the Act provides remedy of raising dispute before the Registrar or any other officer as prescribed under the law. 5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhuneshwari Bunker Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Dongargaon v. Presiding Gfficer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon and another, 200T (1) M.P.H.T. 12 (CG), learned senior counsel submitted that this Court has taken a view relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court that no reference under Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is maintainabie before the Labour Court. 6. On the other hand. learned counsei for respondent No.2 submitted that the Labour Court itseif has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under Section 1‘0 of the \lndustriai Disputes Act and merely because the employee has a remedy ' under the provisions of Section 55 (2) of the Cooperative Societies Act, the Labour Court is not denuded of jurisdiction adjudicate this dispute. He relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sahakari Vipnan (Marketting) Sanstha v. Labour Court. indore and others, 1%? W‘I.F’.L.J.. 31. Learned counsel further submits that the termination of the fp‘ t ,;. /.;’....j ' petitioner had taken on the instructions i’ directions of the Registrar, Cooperative $ociety itseif and the remedy of raising dispute under the provisions of Section 55 (’2) of the Act is iiiusionary under the iaw and therefore, "che petitioner eiected t0 avaii remedy of raising industriai dispute under the industriai Disputes Act. 7. After having considered the submissions made by iearned counsei for the parties, i am of the view that this petition deserves to be aiiowed on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction and competence to deal with the dispute raised by the empioyees of the Cooperative Societies Act. This Court in the case of Bhuneshwari Bunker (Supra) considered this aspect. This Court examined the dispute in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RC. Tiwari v. MP. Sstate Cooperative fviarkettinq Federation Ltd. and others (AIR 1Q97 Supreme Court 2652) and $auarmai v. Distt. Sahkari Kendriva Bank Ltd.. fviandsaur and another fi'igQT) 9 $upreme Court Cases 3541. and came to the conciusion that in view of the iaw iaid down by the $upreme Court in the aforementioned cases, it is weii estabiished that no reference under Section 1‘0 of the industriai Disputes Act. W47 is maintainabie before the Labour Court. 8. The aforesaid decision has been rendered, reiying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of RC. Tiwari (Supra) and Sagarmai {Supra} wherein the scheme of MP. Cooperative Societies Act was under consideration before the Supreme Court. Present is a case where the matter is governed by the provisions of Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act. Reiiance piaced by iearned counsel for respondent No.2 on the decision in the case of Sahkari Vipnan {supra} is no ionger availabie to the benefit of the respondent No.2 because that decision was rendered prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court K in the cases of RC. Tiwari (Supra) and Sagarmal (Supra). As the iaw iaid , down by this Court in the case of Bhuneshwari Bunker (3upra) is based on the digta :of the Supreme Count in the cases of R.C. Tiwari ($upra) and $agarmai {Supra}, i am unabie to exceed to the contention of teamed counsel for respondent No.2 based on the verdict in the case of Sahakari Vipnan (supra). 9. The submission of teamed counsel for respondent No.2 is that as the Registrar himself has piayed vital role in termination of the services of respondent No.2, therefore the remedy of raising dispute before the same authority is illusionary. The contention, even if accepted, woutd not validate the to. in View of the above discussion, the impugned award is deciared iliegai, . void and honest and is therefore! set aside reserving liberty to the petitioner as f stated above. The petition is accordingiy aiiowed. M ’/ sw- n Shrivastava/x f x i l tundra . MOha ’ lMa Judge