SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Kar) 78

Karnataka High Court
Judges : S.P.Bharucha,K.Shivashankar Bhat,Shivaraj Patil
PANDAVAPURA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KHARKHANE LTD. - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL.T. - Respondent
WP 11380 Of 1988
Decided On : 02/25/1992

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a specific notification under Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act to exclude its provisions from being applied to a particular establishment.

Headnote:

Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act - Co-operative Society - Section 129(2)(o) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act - Rules 18 - Summary: The court discussed the applicability of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act to a co-operative society and the impact of rules regulating the conditions of service of officers and employees under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The court emphasized the need for a specific notification under Section 13-B of the Standing Orders Act to exclude the operation of the Act, and over-ruled a previous decision that did not reflect the correct law as laid down by the Supreme Court.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a co-operative society engaged in sugar manufacturing, contested the applicability of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act to its establishment based on rules regulating the conditions of service under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The dispute arose from the age of superannuation of the employees and the recommendations of the Second Wage Board for Sugar Industries.

Finding of the Court:

The court over-ruled a previous decision and held that the rules under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act did not exclude the operation of the Standing Orders Act, emphasizing the need for a specific notification under Section 13-B of the Act to do so.

Issues: The main issue was whether the rules under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act were sufficient to make the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act inapplicable to the petitioner establishment, without a specific notification under Section 13-B of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a clear and unequivocal notification under Section 13-B of the Standing Orders Act to exclude its provisions from being applied to a particular establishment, over-ruling a previous decision that did not reflect the correct law as laid down by the Supreme Court.

Final Decision: The court answered the question referred to it in the negative, holding that the rules under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act did not exclude the operation of the Standing Orders Act in respect of the matters covered by the said rules.

K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE question referred to us for our opinion reads thus:

"whether the fact that the State Government has framed rules regulating the conditions of service of officers and employees of co-operative societies established and functioning under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, under Section 129 (2) (o) of that Act, in which there is a rule prescribing the age of superannuation of officers and employees of a Co-operative Society and the rules have been published in the Official gazette, is sufficient to make the Industrial employment Standing Orders Act inapplicable to the petitioner establishment by the force of section 13-B of the said Act, even in the absence of publication of such rules by a specific notification - issued by the Government under Section 13-B of Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act?

( 2 ) THE question arises because of an earlier Bench of this Court in K. V. R. SHETTY v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA AND ORS. , 1979 (2) Kar. L. J. 429, wherein it was held that the regulations having been notified once, they need not be again notified under Section 13-B of the Industrial Employments (Standing Orders) act, 1946 (referred hereafter, either as the Act, or as the Standing Orders Act ). Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in U. P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. HARI shanker, A.. R. 1979 S. C. 65 a subsequent Bench disagreed with the correctness of this earlier view. Hence this reference.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a co-operative Society, carrying on the business of manufacture of sugar. There is also no dispute that it is an Industrial establishment covered by the provisions of the act. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, rules were made to govern certain conditions of services of officers and employees of the Co-operatives. Rule 18 provides the age of retirement of an employee to be 58 years.

( 4 ) THE Second Wage Board for Sugar Industries constituted by the Central Government submitted its report on 16th February 1970. Various recommendations were made regarding the improvements of conditions of service of the employees employed in the sugar factories in the country. One of them was that gratuity was payable on attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years, which necessarily implied that the age of superannuation of the workmen of the establishment of sugar factories should be 60 years. After the above recommendations came into force, the employees of the petitioner-factory began to agitate for increasing the age of superannuation of the workmen of the petitioner-industry from 58 to 60 years. It appears, that six workmen of the petitioner-factory raised a dispute that they were entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. The Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, which was Reference No. 20/78, which was rejected on 1-5-1988 on the ground that the age of superannuation of the employees of the petitioner-industry would be in "accordance with Rule 18 of the Rules, according to which they were liable to be retired at the age of 58 years. Subsequently, the employees also approached the Government for referring their dispute with the management that the age of superannuation should be raised to 60 years so as to bring it in conformity with the recommendations of the Second Wage Board for Sugar Industries. The learned Counsel for the workmen submitted that workmen did not themselves pursue the matter and accordingly reference was rejected on 1-5-1988. Thereafter, the workmen filed an application before the Certifying Officer under Section 10 of the Standing Orders Act on 8-8-1986. In the said application they prayed for the amendment of the Standing Orders by way of incorporating the rule of retirement providing for retirement of the workmen at the age of 60 years,. e. , in conformity with the recommendations of the Second Wage Board for Sugar industries. This ap






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top