( 1 ) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondent to treat the award and orders dated 11. 3. 2004 and 21. 7. 2004 passed in Reference (LCA) No. 1405 of 1994 and Misc. Application No. 145 of 2004 in Reference (LCA) No. 1405 of 1994 as null and void and not effective and to quash and set aside the same.

( 2 ) IT appears from the record that the petitioner Roopmati M. P. Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd. , is a cooperative society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ("the State Act" for short), the head office of which is situated at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh and Saree Emporium of the society is situated in Kamdhenu Complex, Ambawadi at Ahmedabad.

( 3 ) IT appears from the record that the respondent Smt. Harbala Pranjivan Trivedi was appointed as Sales Assistant and was paid Rs. 900/- as salary per month. She was working at Saree Emporium of the society situated at Ahmedabad. It is the case of the petitioner that she voluntarily resigned from her service with effect from 7. 1. 1994 and, thereafter she raised the industrial dispute alleging that her services were terminated illegally and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short ). The said reference was registered as Reference (LCA) No. 1405 of 1994. Ultimately, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad allowed the said reference by order dated 11. 03. 2004 by which the petitioner society was directed to reinstate the respondent in service with 50% back wages and continuity of service.

( 4 ) IT appears from the record that the petitioner society thereafter filed Misc. Application No. 145 of 2004 under Rule 26-A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat)Rules, 1966 ("the Rules" for short) for setting aside ex-parte award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad against the petitioner society. The said Misc. Application was also rejected by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad by order dated 21. 07. 2004. Being aggrieved by the said award and order, the petitioner society has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned advocates for the parties. Mr. S. J. Gaekwad, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has mainly contended that the Labour Court, Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the reference in view of the provisions of Section 64 read with Section 55 of the State Act. In support of his contention, Mr. Gaekwad has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R. C. Tiwari V/s M. P. Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 125 and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sagarmal V/s District Sahkari Kendriya Bank Ltd. , Mandsaur, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 354 as well as other judgments of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the respondent has failed to prove that she has served with the petitioner society for 240 days during the preceding 12 months prior to the alleged date of termination of service and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of termination was passed in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. It is, therefore, requested to allow the present petition.

( 6 ) AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY is filed by the respondent and has opposed this petition. It is the main contention of the respondent that the petitioners society is a Multi State Cooperative Society and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was not ousted. It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Mr. Joshi that the present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is not joined as a party respondent. It is submitted that as observed by this Court in the judgment reported in 2004 (1) GLR 729 in para 34 that when the Tribunal or the Labour Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document