By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the award of the Labour Court dated 12.2.1998, whereby the Labour Court has held the termination of services of the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 9.2.1993 as bad in law and has further directed that the respondent No. 2 to be reinstated in service and be paid three-fourths (¾) wages as arrears of wages.
The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 2 filed a Civil Suit No. 174 of 1993 challenging the order terminating his services w.e.f. 24.2.1993. The said Civil Suit is stated to be pending. However, in the mean time the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court as Adjudication Case No. 284 of 1994 and the question referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the order dated 9.2.1993 terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 were valid in law and if not what reliefs the respondent No. 2 would be entitled to.
The case of the respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court was that he was engaged as daily-wager in the petitioner-Cooperative Society in the year 1986 and was paid Rs.36 per day as daily wages. His services were also regularized by an oral order. His case further is that when he made a demand of payment for minimum wages, the petitioner-Employer denied the same and without any notice or calling for any explanation from him passed the order dated 9.2.1993 by which his services were terminated. Subsequently, an agreement was arrived at between the petitioner-Employer and the respondent No. 2 on 22.2.1993, which however, was not honoured by the petitioners.
The case of the respondent No. 2 further is that after dispensing with his services, other persons were engaged and thus, the respondent No. 2 has not only lost his job but also the wages he was drawing. The case was contested before the Labour Court and thereafter the Labour Court vide award dated 12.2.1998 held the order dated 9.3.1993, terminating the services of the petitioner to be illegal and further directed that the respondent No. 2 be reinstated in service with back-wages to the extent of three-fourths (¾) of his wages.
I have heard Sri G.D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents. The order is being dictated in open Court.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 was an employee of the Contractor and was never employed by the petitioner-Cooperative Society and his salary was also paid by the Contractor one Sri Ram Chandra Shukla.
The submission of Sri G.D. Mishra further is that according to the terms of the agreement arrived at between the Contractor and the petitioner on 22.2.1993, while the petitioner would be responsible for at least the minimum wages, it is the Contractor who would take the labour back in service.
However, Shri G.D. Mishra submitted that since the respondent No. 2 was never employed by the petitioner-Cooperative Society, he was not an employee/workman of the petitioner-Cooperative Society and therefore, the proceedings before the Labour Court were not maintainable against the petitioner-Employer and no reliefs could have been granted by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner-Employer.
The submission of Sri G.D. Mishra further is that even otherwise, the proceedings before the Labour Court were not maintainable if the respondent No. 2 claimed himself to be a 'workman' and employee of the petitioner-Cooperative Society inasmuch as the Cooperative Society is not an Industry and does not fall within the definition of the term 'Industry' as defined in Section 2K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that the employees of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies would be governed only by the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and that the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would have no application with regard to the employees of the U.P. Cooperative Societies or those claiming themselves to be the employees of the U.P. Cooperative Societies. In these circumstances also the proceedings before the Labour Court were not maintainable. He has further submitted that the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is a special Act and therefore, Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 would alone apply in the matter of employment in the cooperative societies to the exclusion of all Labour Laws.
Sri G.D. Mishra has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 (113) FLR 50, (SC) Gaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. Versus Additional Labour Commissioner. Sri Mishra has laid special emphasis on the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 45 of the said judgment. Para 45 reads as follows:
"Interpretation of Statutes-General legal principle is that "the General Act should lead to the Special Act" - As such the special enactment U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 alone should apply in matter of employment of Co-operative Societies. [Para 45] The general legal principle in interpretation of statutes is that 'the General Act should lead to the Special Act'. Upon this general principle of law, the intention of the U.P. legislature is clear, that the special enactment U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 alone should apply in the matter of employment of Co-operative Societies to the exclusion of all other Labour Laws. It is a complete Code in itself as regards employment in co-operative societies and its machinery and provisions. The General Act the U.P.I.D. Act, 1947 as a whole has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the U.P.C.S. Act.
A General Act's operation may be curtailed by a later Special Act even if the General Act will be more readily inferred when the later Special Act also contains an overriding non-obstante provision."
Thus, from a reading of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in para 45 of the judgment in Gaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. Versus Additional Labour Commissioner (supra), the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is a special Act and matters relating to employment in the Cooperative Societies created under and registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, would be governed only by the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 to the ouster of all Labour Laws including the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court has specifically held that the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a general Act and can have no application and stands excluded after the enforcement of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Adjudication Case No. 284 of 1994 before the Labour Court was therefore not maintainable and the award dated 12.2.1998 is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and is therefore, set aside. The writ petition accordingly, stands allowed.
So far as the amounts directed to be deposited by this Court in a Nationalized Bank vide order dated 28.4.1999 is concerned, it will be open for the petitioner to apply to the Labour Court for release of the said amount in favour of the petitioners.
Order Date :- 19.7.2012 Arun K. Singh