Case: The Maharashtra State Coop.Housing.Fin.C Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange

1. The appellant, Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the `Corporation), is a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act). The respondent had joined the services in the appellant Corporation in the year 1975 as an Inspector. He was promoted to the post of Branch Manager (Class-I) in the year 2000. For certain acts of misconduct allegedly committed by the respondent, he was put under suspension vide orders dated July 11, 2003. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was served upon him and the departmental inquiry conducted, which resulted in dismissal order dated April 28, 2006 passed by the Corporation, dismissing the respondent from service. His departmental appeal having dismissed, the respondent approached the Cooperative Court at Aurangabad, which is set up under the Act, on April 19, 2007 challenging the orders of dismissal from service as well as the order rejecting the departmental appeal by filing Dispute No. 61 of 2007. On receiving the notice in the said dispute petition, the Corporation filed an application for rejection of the petition of the respondent on the ground that the Cooperative Court set up under the Act did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the service dispute between the employer and the employee, inasmuch as the dispute in question did not touch upon the business of the society and was not covered by the provisions of Section 91 of the Act. The Cooperative Court dismissed the said application holding that it had the requisite jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Order of the Cooperative Court was challenged by the appellant before the Cooperative Appellate Court in the form of an appeal. This appeal was dismissed confirming the orders of the Cooperative Court. Further challenge was laid by the appellant by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. This writ petition has also been dismissed vide judgment dated January 21, 2014. Present appeal assails the said judgment of the High Court.Before the High Court it was argued by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent was not claiming reinstatement as he had attained the age of superannuation when the dispute was filed. Therefore, while challenging the resolution of the respondent dismissing his services, the respondent was seeking compensation for wrongful dismissal. It was, thus, argued that since reinstatement was not claimed, the award of compensation was within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court. This contention of the respondent is accepted by the High Court relying upon its earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar v. Managing Director, Kannaded Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Anr., 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 214 The rationale behind this view taken in the aforesaid judgment by the High Court was that the remedy under Section 91(1) of the Act is a substitute for the remedy which could have been available before the Civil Court as the forum created under Section 91 is a substitute for the Civil Court and created under a special legislation. Since the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to award damages, the Cooperative Court would be vested with same powers as its substitute. The High Court also held that the respondent herein was working as the Manager with the appellant Corporation and, therefore, was not `workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that, no doubt the Cooperative Court was the substitute of the Civil Court, but, at the same time, it was the creature of the statute and only limited powers were conferred upon the Cooperative Court and not all the powers of the Civil Court. These powers pertained to the nature of disputes which were categorically delineated under Section 91 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the Cooperative Court was vested with the jurisdiction to decide only those disputes which touch upon the business of the society and since it was not a dispute pertaining to the business of the society or the election of committee or its officers, and was an employer-employee dispute, Section 91 did not give any power to the Cooperative Court to decide such disputes which arise between the employer and the

Reasoning: 7. We may state at the outset that it was conceded at the Bar that if the employee of a cooperative society is covered by the definition of `workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and claims a relief of reinstatement, in that event the Cooperative Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim, inasmuch as, relief of reinstatement cannot be granted by the Cooperative Court. Such a relief can only be granted by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act having regard to the fact that special and complete machinery for this purpose is provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands ousted.8. Even when the employees falling under any of the aforesaid three categories raise dispute qua their termination, the Civil Court is not empowered to grant reinstatement and the remedy would be, in the first two categories, by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or the Administrative Tribunal Act, as the case may be, and in the third category, it would be under the Industrial Disputes Act. An employee who does not fall in any of the aforesaid exceptions cannot claim reinstatement. His only remedy is to file a suit in the Civil Court seeking declaration that termination was wrongful and claim damages for such wrongful termination of services. Admittedly, the appellant Corporation is not a `State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The respondent also cannot be treated as a Government/public servant as he was not under the employment of any Government. He was also not `workman under the Industrial Disputes Act as he was working as Manager with the appellant Corporation.9. In the aforesaid conspectus, we have to examine as to whether this power which is available with the Civil Court to grant damages is now given to the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Act. We may also mention at this stage that some of the States have statutes which contain provisions regarding management and regulations of the cooperative society, where specific machinery under these State Cooperative Societies Acts is provided for resolution of employment disputes as well, between the cooperative societies and its employees, that too by excluding the applicability of labour laws. No doubt, in such cases, the disputes between the cooperative societies and it employees, including the workmen, would be dealt with by such machinery and the general Act, like the Industrial Disputes Act, would not be applicable (See Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 756     and Dharappa v. Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., 2007(3) S.C.T. 491 : (2007) 9 SCC 109  ). Pertinently, in the instant case, Section 91 specifically excludes the disputes between the cooperative society as employer and its `workmen. Ultimately, the outcome depends upon the powers that are given to the Cooperative Court or the stipulated tribunal created under such Acts. It is in this hue we have to find out as to whether Section 91 of the Act at hand empowers Cooperative Courts to decide such disputes.It may be noted that the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has itself proceeded on the basis that if the dispute relates to reinstatement, the Cooperative Court will not have any jurisdiction. The main reason for conferring jurisdiction upon the Cooperative Court in the instant case is that the Cooperative Court has replaced the Civil Court and, therefore, powers of the Civil Court are given to the Cooperative Court. However, the High Court erred in not further analysing the provisions of Section 91 of the Act which spells out the specific powers that are given to the Cooperative Court and those powers are of limited nature. Our aforesaid analysis leads to the conclusion that the disputes between the cooperative society and its employees are not covered by the said provision. We may hasten to add that if the provision is couched in a language to include such disputes (and we find such provisions in the Cooperative Societies Acts of certain States) and it is found that the Cooperative Society Act provides for complete machinery of redressal of grievances of the employees, then even the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act shall be barred having regard to the provisions of such a special statute vis-a-vis general statute like the Industrial Disputes Act17. In Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad & Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 123  , an employee working as Additional Supervisor was removed from service by giving one months pay in lieu of Notice under the Staff Regulations. He had issued a notice under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, as he was an employee as defined under section 2(13) of the said Act. One of the questions that was considered by this Court was whether a dispute raised by the said employee for setting aside his removal from service on the ground that it was an act of victimization and for reinstatement in service with back wages was one `touching the management or business of the society, within the contemplation of the Co-operative Societies Act. This Court held that the expression `any dispute referred to in section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 did not cover a dispute of the kind raised by the respondent employee against the bank.