Back
2005 Supreme(Kar) 652
Karnataka High Court
KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION EMPLOYEES federation (R), BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR IN KARNATAKA, bangalore - Respondent
Decided On : 10-24-05
Writ Petition : 27441 of 2004
A.N.VENUGOPAL GOWDA, M.C.NARASIMHAN, M.R.C.RAVI, NARAYANA SWAMY, SZA KHURESHI
Headnote:Dispute under the section
Section 70 - Dispute under - Contract labour of society -Are like a child in the womb - They are not yet employees of society - Hence, their dispute cannot be resolved by Registrar - Reference to Labour Court is proper and rejection by labour Court is improper.
[R. Gururajan, J]: In the writ petition what the workmen want is regularisation of contract- labour. They are yet to become employees of the Society. The contract labour is like a child in the womb and the child is yet to take its birth in the form of an employee. In these circumstances as rightly pointed out by Sri Narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel, this matter cannot form a dispute that can be adjudicated by a Registrar in terms of Section 70(2)(d) of the Act. This dispute is outside Section 70(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore ousting of jurisdiction under Industrial Disputes Act is not available insofar as this petition is concerned. In fact in para 19 in the Full Bench judgment, it is categorically stated that when the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the industrial Tribunal in respect of matters covered under Section 70, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act stand excluded to that extent only. In respect of an matters which are not covered under Section 70, the Industrial Disputes Act, applies. Since the present dispute is not covered under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Industrial Disputes Act alone is applicable in terms of the Full Bench judgment and in terms of Section 70 itself. In these circumstance, the endorsement issued by the Commissioner has to be set aside and the matter is to be reconsidered by him in accordance with law.
Cases Referred: 2001 (3) Kar. L. J 519 (DB): ILR 2000 Kar. 3743 (DB): 2001-I-LLJ-980 (Kar.) (DB); 2003 (4) Kar. L. J. 453 (FB): ILR 2003 Kar. 2531 (FB): 2003-II-LLJ-502 (Kar.) (FB).
( 2 ) FIRST petitioner is a federation of various registered trade unions functioning among the workmen employed by KMF and the so-called contractors working in various District Milk Unions referred to as respondents in this petition. The [second and the third respondents] are the contract labourers working in the respondent 15 for the last 10 to 15 years. The fourth petitioner is also a contract labourer working in the fourth respondent. First petitioner-federation has in the past, negotiated with the respondent-managements on many occasions in respect of the service conditions of employees. Settlements have been entered into between the parties. Respondents 4 to 17 are all respectively employers in the milk industry in the entire State of Karnataka. There are several workmen who are working on contract basis as on today. Federation raised a dispute in this regard before the Labour Commissioner and the matter was referred to industrial adjudication. During the pendency of the dispute, the reference was challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition. This Court ruled that the question of abolition of contract labour has to be referred to the State Government. The State government thereafter passed an order for prohibiting employment of contract labour in respondent establishments. The said notification was challenged by the respondents before this Court in W. P. Nos. 48206 to 48212 of 2001.
( 3 ) MANAGEMENTS were not however agreeable for absorption of contract labour. In those circumstances, the federation was compelled to raise disputes before the various authorities. Petitioners filed a petition before the Department of Labour. The Commissioner of Labour has issued an endorsement and in the endorsement the Commissioner has stated that in view of the decision of this Court it is not possible to take up the matter in conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter petitioner moved the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Registrar has chosen to issue an endorsement saying that since the petitioner-federation is not an institution registered under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the dispute cannot be entertained. It was informed that since the dispute is collective in nature, it cannot come under Section 70 of the Act. Petitioners in these circumstances, are before me seeking for various prayers.
( 4 ) NOTICES have been issued and respondents have entered appearance.
( 5 ) SRI M. C. Narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would invite my attention to Section 70 of the Act to say that a dispute of this nature cannot be adjudicated by a Registrar of co-operative Societies and in such circumstances Industrial Disputes act is the only answer. He would rely on a Full Bench decision of this court to say that the matters can be referred by the Government in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act.
( 6 ) PER contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would say that there are subsequent developments after filing of the case. He says that the workmen have again approached the Government and thereafter a reference was made by the Tribunal. A writ petition was filed and this court ruled that the Government has to consider the issue of abolition of contract labour. A notification under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was is
