The Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot decide an industrial dispute because he is bound by the contract of employment and cannot grant any relief outside the contract.

Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Industrial Disputes - Whether S. 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, bars a dispute between a co-operative society and its employees regarding a demand for a change in the terms of employment or for reinstatement of the employees, whose services had been terminated, from being decided under the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of a co-operative society, was terminated from service. He filed an application under the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, seeking reinstatement and payment of back wages. The application was dismissed, and the petitioner filed a revision application before the State Industrial Court, which upheld the dismissal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner then filed a special civil application in the Bombay High Court, which referred the question of whether S. 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, barred such disputes from being decided under the Industrial Disputes Acts to a Full Bench.
Finding of the Court:

The Full Bench held that S. 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, did not bar such disputes from being decided under the Industrial Disputes Acts. The Court held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies could not decide an industrial dispute, because like a civil court, he was bound by the contract of employment and could not grant any relief outside the contract. The Court also held that the non-obstante clause in S. 91 only excluded the application of other laws in regard to the forum of trial, and did not alter or modify the substantive rights of the parties or confer any additional powers on the Registrar.
Issues: Whether S. 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, bars a dispute between a co-operative society and its employees regarding a demand for a change in the terms of employment or for reinstatement of the employees, whose services had been terminated, from being decided under the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies could not decide an industrial dispute, because like a civil court, he was bound by the contract of employment and could not grant any relief outside the contract. The Court also held that the non-obstante clause in S. 91 only excluded the application of other laws in regard to the forum of trial, and did not alter or modify the substantive rights of the parties or confer any additional powers on the Registrar.
Final Decision: The Court answered the question referred to it in the negative, holding that S. 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, did not bar such disputes from being decided under the Industrial Disputes Acts.

JUDGMENT - Chainani, C.J.

1. The question which has been referred to us for our consideration, as re -drafted by us in consultation with the learned counsel for the parties, is as under:

Whether S. 91 of the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies act, 1960, operates as a bar to a dispute between a co - operative in regard to a demands or employees in regard to a demand for the a change in the term of employment or for change reinstatement of the employees, whose services had been terminated, being decided under the C.P. and berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 or the Industrial disputes Act 1947?

The facts in special civil Application No. 765, of 1964 which has given rise to this reference briefly are that the petitioners was employed by the respondent No.1 which is a co - operative society ordinarily registered under the Co - operative societies act, 1912. On 14-11-1962 is services were trepanned with effect from 15-12-1962. On 4-6-1963 he made an application of to the Assistant Commissioners of Labor under Sub -S [2] of S. 16 of the C.P and Berar Industrial Disputes settlement act 1947 in which he prayed that an order should be made for his reinstatement and for payment of to him back wages. This application was dismissed. The petitioners filed a recession application before the state Industrial Court under Sub - s [5] of S .16 of the Act. Before the state Industrial court an objections of was raised that neither the Assistant Commissioners of Labor nor the state industrial commissioner application made by the petitioner as under S. 91 of the Maharastra co - operative societies act only the Registrar of co - operative societies or his nominee was competent of to decide the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents No.1 This objections of was upheld b the state industrial court which held that only the Registrar and had jurisdiction of in the matter. The state Industrial court therefore dismissed the application of made by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioners of filed the special civil application of in this court which has given rise to the this reference.

(2) The parties in two other special civil applications - Special Civil Application No.161 of 1965 and special Civil Application No. 443 of 1964 filed in Bombay have been allowed the intervene. The facts of special civil application No. 161 of 1965 are similar to those of special Civil application of No. 765 of 1964. The petitioner in that application was an employee of the respondents of No.3, of which is a Co - operative Society. The petitioners had resigned from this service. Subsequently he made an application under sub - s [2] of S. 16 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes settlement Act, alleging that he had been forced to there sign from service. He prayed that he should be reinstated in service. That application was reject. A revision application to the state rejected Industrial Court also failed on the same ground that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter.

(3)The third Special Civil Application No. 443 of 1964 arises out of a reference of made by the state Government under S. 10 [2] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Industrial Tribunal by which a dispute between the petitioner, which is Co - operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies Act, 1960 and its workman represented that the respondent No.1 was referred to the adjudication of the industrial Tribunal. The dispute of the related to the demands made by the workers, for highly pay scales, for additional leave benefit, for contributory provident found. For bonus etc.

(4) In order to determine the question which arises for our consideration, it is necessary to first consider what an "industrial dispute" means and the nature of reliefs which the authority adjudicating such dispute can grant. The term "industry" is defined in C1 [j] of S. 2 of the Industrial Disputes act as meaning any business, trade, undertaking manufacture or calling of emplo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document