Court No. 06 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39002 of 1994.
S.K.Singh Versus Secretary, D.A.C. & District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kanpur through its Manager and others.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the Award of the Labour Court dated 07.12.1993 passed in Adjudication Case No. 142 of 1991, Labour Court, Kanpur whereby the reference has been answered against the workman concerned.
At the very outset Standing Counsel points out that the reference itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that the workman was an employee of a registered Cooperative Society and, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghaziabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and others reported in FLR 2007 (113), 50, the remedy available to the employees of the Cooperative Societies is within the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the rules framed thereunder.
In reply Shri B.N.Singh, Advocate contended before this Court that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India requires reconsideration for the following reasons :
(a) Section 135 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 itself contains a provision that the same would come into operation from a date to be notified by the State Government. This according to Shri B.N.Singh, Advocate is a legislative function to be performed by the State Government by issuing appropriate notification for bringing into force the provisions of Section 135. The Supreme Court of India cannot usurp the legislative powers conferred upon the State Government under the said Section and could not have declared that it is irrelevant as to whether that the State Government has issued the notification for enforcing Section 135 of the Cooperative Societies Act or not.
(b) A three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 1969 (9) FLR, 56 has explained that not every part of the activity of the Cooperative Society is to be treated as touching the business of the Society, so as to be capable of being adjudicated under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. He clarifies that any activity undertaken by the Cooperative Society which is commercial in nature and is not touching the business of the Society may, therefore, not fall within the ambit of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act and in respect of such activities industrial disputes can always be raised and adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submits that the legal consequences flowing from the three Judges judgment of the Supreme Court have gone un-noticed in the Case of Ghaziabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Supra).
(c) It is then contended that the Supreme Court of India has not rightly appreciated the scope and the intent of law laid down in its earlier judgments in the case of Municipal Council Palai vs. T.J.Joseph reported in AIR 1963, 1561 as also in the case of R.S. Raghunath vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1991 (4) J.T., 82. He submits that in the aforesaid judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained that if there is conflict between the general law and the special law, any amendment in the general law will prevail and not vice versa.
(d) Lastly it is contended that legislature while incorporating the Industrial Disputes Act has itself excluded certain activities from the definition of Industry as contained in Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act and there is absolutely no reason to exclude any other activity from the definition of Industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. Having heard the contention so raised, this Court may only record that the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts of law in view of the Article 141 of the Constitution of India and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can neither disagree with the judgment nor can hold that the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is not to be followed. Counsel for the petitioner then contended that an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in a case has held that since no objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to consider the dispute qua the employee of the Co-operative Society was raised before the Labour Court, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and others reported in FLR 2007 (113), 50 shall not be applicable. He further points out that the S.L.P. Filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed. It is stated that in this case also no such plea was raised before the Labour Court. I am of the considered opinion that issue of jurisdiction to entertain a dispute qua the employees of Cooperative Societies has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Supra). It has been held that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute. Such plea of patent lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court being binding upon this Court, no other view can be taken.
In view of the aforesaid this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute as raised by the petitioner was legally not entertainable by the Labour Court and, therefore, irrespective of the merits of the order passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 142 of 1991. This Court has no other option but to dismiss the writ petition by leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his remedy in accordance with the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act as has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghaziabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra). With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed Dated : 12.01.2010 VR/39002/94