IMPORTANT POINT
If any provision of a State Co-operative Societies Act which had received the assent of the President was repugnant to any provision of the ID Act, the provisions of the State Act will prevail. Before applying the principles enunciated with reference to another enactment, care should be taken to find out whether the provisions of the Act to which such principles are sought to be applied, are similar to the provisions of the Act with reference to which the principles were evolved.

Headnote:Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (as amended in 1976 and 2000) – Section 70 and Sections 10 and 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – A dispute between a co-operative society and its employees in regard to terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action, is an industrial and labour dispute – The effect of the 2000 amendment to Section 70 of KCS Act, is that if any dispute (including any dispute relating to the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action), arose between a co-operative society and its employees, on and from 20.6.2000, such dispute had to be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Civil Court or Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of such dispute – Even prior to 20.6.2000, any dispute between a co-operative society and its employees including a dispute regarding the terms of employment etc., was deemed to be a dispute touching the constitution, management, or business of a co-operative society which had to be referred to the Registrar for adjudication; but there was no express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal. (Para 10 to 12) Constitution of India – Article 254 – If any provision of a State Co-operative Societies Act which had received the assent of the President, was repugnant to any provision of the ID Act, the provisions of the State Act will prevail – The KCS (Amendment) Act 2000 received Presidential assent on 18.3.2000 giving effect to the amended provisions from 20.6.2000 – Therefore, the jurisdiction of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals were excluded in regard to disputes between a co-operative Society and its employees only with effect from 20.6.2000 (Para 13, 14 and 20) AIR 1970 SC 245 – Relied upon. 2001 (3) Kar.L.J. 519; 2003 (4) Kar.L.J. 353; ILR 2005 Karnataka 3882 – Overruled. Judicial Interpretation – Many a time, a principle laid down by Supreme Court with reference to the provisions of a particular State Act is mechanically followed to interpret cognate enactments of other States, without first ascertaining whether the provisions of the two enactments are identical or similar. This frequently happens with reference to the laws relating to rent and accommodation control, co-operative societies and land revenue. Before applying the principles enunciated with reference to another enactment, care should be taken to find out whether the provisions of the Act to which such principles are sought to be applied, are similar to the provisions of the Act with reference to which the principles were evolved. Failure to do so has led to a wrong interpretation of section 70 of the KCS Act. (Para 17) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 10 (4A) – The jurisdiction of Labour Court was not excluded from Co-operative disputes before 2000 amendment of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 – Therefore the award of Labour Court granted to appellant on 15.10.1996 was not without jurisdiction – However, although the appellant applied within six month of the amendment, his claim had already become stale, being more than 10 years old – Therefore, it should not have been entertained. (Paras 23 and 28 to 30) (2000) 2 SCC 455; (2001) 1 SCC 133; 2002 (1) LLJ 457; (2003) 4 SCC 27 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
       1.The appellant was employed as a daily-wage labourer in the Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur, on 13.5.1977. He alleged to have worked continuously and uninterruptedly till his services were illegally terminated with effect from 1.3.1980. The appellant did not challenge his termination.
       2.Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was amended in Karnataka by the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987.
       3.Taking advantage of the new provision, on 4.10.1988, the appellant made an application to the Labour Court seeking a declaration that his termination from service on 1.3.1980 was null and void and a direction for reinstatement with full back-wages, continuity of service and other consequential reliefs.
       Findings of the Court :
       Although the appellant applied within six month of the amendment, his claim had already become stale, being more than 10 years old. Therefore, it should not have been entertained.

J U D G M E N T

RAVEENDRAN, J.—

Leave granted.

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 15.6.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.2131/2005.

2.The appellant claims that he was employed as a daily-wage labourer in the Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur, on 13.5.1977. He further alleges that he worked continuously and uninterruptedly till his services were illegally terminated with effect from 1.3.1980. The appellant did not challenge his termination.

3.Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( ‘ID Act’ for short) was amended in Karnataka by the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987 [Karnataka Act No.5 of 1988] inserting the following as sub-section (4A) with effect from 7.4.1988 :

“(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 9-C and in this section, in the case of a dispute falling within the scope of section 2-A, the individual workman concerned may, within six months from the date of communication to him of the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination or the date of commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987, whichever is later, apply, in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute and the Labour Court shall dispose of such application in the same manner as a dispute referred under sub-section (1).”

Taking advantage of the new provision, on 4.10.1988, the appellant made an application to the Labour Court, Hubli (KID No.1055/88 subsequently transferred and renumbered as KID No. 497/1995 on the file of the Labour Court, Bijapur) seeking a declaration that his termination from service on 1.3.1980 was null and void and a direction for reinstatement with full back-wages, continuity of service and other consequential reliefs. The appellant contended that his termination amounted to illegal retrenchment, as the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of ID Act even though he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year.

4.The respondent (Karnataka Milk Federation, Unit : Bijapur) filed an objection statement contending that it came into existence and took over the Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur, long after the alleged termination of appellant by Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur. The respondent denied the claim of the appellant that he was a daily wage worker between 13.5.1977 and 1.3.1980 and that his services were termination in violation of section 25F of the ID Act.

5.The appellant gave evidence and produced a certificate dated 19.2.1978 allegedly issued by the Dairy Supervisor, Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur, certifying that he had worked as a casual labourer from 13.5.1977 to 19.2.1978. None was examined on behalf of the respondent to deny the said certificate. On consideration of the material, the Labour Court accepted the said service certificate, but did not accept his further self-serving statement that he worked up to 1.3.1980 as such claim was not supported by any document. The Labour Court made an award dated 15.10.1996 directing reinstatement, holding that Appellant had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding termination (13.5.1977 to 19.2.1978), and the termination of his service, without complying with section 25F of ID Act, amounted to illegal retrenchment. However, as there was an inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the claim statement, the Labour Court awarded only 50% back-wages in addition to continuity of service and consequential benefits. The respondent challenged the said award in W.P. No.7227/1997.

6.During the pendency of the said writ petition, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court held in Veerashiva Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court1 [2001 (3) Kar.L.J. 519] that the procedure for adjudication and the remedy provided under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘KCS Act’ for short) being comprehensive, the jurisdiction of Labour Courts under ID Act to deal with such disputes was barred. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 588

Cases Referred (8)