( 1 ) THESE writ petitions are filed by a co-operative bank assailing the order of the labour court, Bangalore dismissing the petition filed by it. Brief facts of the case are:

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a registered bank under the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act ('act' for short ). The respondents claim to be the employees of the bank. Their services were terminated by order dated September 13, 1996. Aggrieved by that Order, respondents filed a dispute under Section 10 (4-a) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the labour court, Bangalore. The petitioner entered appearance and filed objections to dismiss the dispute on the ground that it is not maintainable as the petitioner is a co-operative bank registered under the Provisions of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act. The respondents are past employees and ought to have raised a dispute under Section 70 (2) (d) of the act. Section 70 (2) (d) of the act gives power to the registrar to deal with disciplinary matters relating to employees in the society or class of societies including the terms and conditions of employment of the employees, working conditions, and disciplinary action taken by the society. This is a special procedure provided under the act and the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act stands excluded.

( 3 ) ON the other hand it is contended by the respondents-employees that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable both on facts and law and the same is filed with a view to drag on the proceedings. The dispute filed by them is maintainable and the labour court has jurisdiction to decide the same and the application filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The labour court, after considering the rival contentions, and distinguishing the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in R. C. Tiwari V. M. P. State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Air 1997 SC 2652 : 1997 (5) SCC 125 : 1997-ii-llj-236, and relying on the judgment of the learned single judge of this court in W. P. 603/1989 decided on January 21, 1998 and another judgment reported in 1981 (1) KLJ 136, dismissed the application of the petitioner. Assailing that Order, these writ petitions are filed.

( 4 ) WHEN the writ petitions came up for hearing before the learned single judge, learned single judge referred the matter to the division bench for consideration as to- whether a dispute relating to termination of the services of an employee of a cooperative society to which the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 is applicable, is a dispute that can be sought to be adjudicated upon by a labour forum under the Provisions of the i. d. act is of such importance with any decision thereon having wide impact?

( 5 ) THEREFORE the matter is before us.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the act is a self-contained act containing all Provisions providing for considering disputes between the co-operative society and its employees or past employees or heirs and legal representatives of the deceased employees, including the dispute regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by the society. This is a special procedure provided under the act. So the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act stands excluded and the labour court erred in dismissing the application.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the contesting respondents contended that the respondents who are employees of the co-operative society, are workmen as per Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the dispute that they are dismissed illegally without following the procedure is amenable under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act as a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Industrial Disputes Act is a special enactment. Therefore, it prevails over the Co-Operative Societies Act and the labour court has rightly dismissed the application. There are no merits in the writ petitions and are liable to be dismissed.

( 8

Click Here to Read the rest of this document