The jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Act of 1947 is not barred by the provisions of the Act of 2001, which provides an exclusive remedy for disputes between employers and employees of cooperative societies, because the proviso to Section 58(1) of the Act of 2001 does not bar the remedy under the service laws applicable to the employees.

1. - By the Writ Petition, challenge is made to the Order dated 29.5.2013 holding inquiry to be unfair and subsequent Award dated 3.10.2013 holding compulsory retirement of the respondent employee to be illegal.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the reference, two parties were impleaded as employer. First was primary Co-operative Society, which engaged the respondent and second is the petitioner herein. The reply to the statement of claim was submitted by the petitioner bank and had been adopted by the Primary Co-operative Society, who had engaged and passed the order of compulsory retirement. After the reply, the arguments were heard on fairness of the inquiry. The inquiry there upon held to be unfair vide Order dated 29.5.2013. The award was passed soon thereafter 3.10.2013 without providing an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charges. It is more so, when an application was filed by the Primary Co-operative Society to provide them chance to lead evidence to prove charges. It was on declaring inquiry to be unfair vide Orderer dated 29.5.2013. The said application was not decided rather considered in the award itself, whereas the application aforesaid should have been decided prior to the award. The petitioner herein was expecting that the application of the Primary Co-operative Society would be decided. The inquiry would thereupon be held in the Labour Court itself. They did not move application under those circumstances. The Labour Court committed grave illegality be passing award without deciding the application prior to it.

3. The other ground is regarding maintainability of the reference. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complete machinery to resolve the dispute has been provided under the Rajasthan Co-operative Society Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 2001'). The reference of Sections 58 and 60 of the Act of 2001 has been given for it. In view of aforesaid, the reference was not maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1847). A further reference of Rules of 2003 has been given wherein the Primary Co-operative Society can hold inquiry and pass order punishment. The order of punishment is appealable under the Rules of 2003. In the present case, no Appeal was preferred. In view of above also the reference under the Act of 1947 was not maintainable. To support the arguments, reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addition Labour Commissioner 61 Ors., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 756, has been given. A further reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.C Tiwari v. M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2652, has been given.

4. In both the cases, the issue of jurisdiction under the Act of the 1947 was considered. It was held that if remedy is provided under the Co-operative Society, Act, there would be implied exclusion of jurisdiction of the Labour Court. In view of the judgment aforesaid, the impugned award deserves to be quashed. The Labe: Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute which is covered under Section 58 of the Act of 2001.

5. Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the award. He submits that after hearing the arguments of fairness of inquiry, It was held to be unfair. The petitioner herein did not ask for chance to lead evidence to prove charges. In absence of an application, the arguments were heard followed by award on 5.10.2013.

6. So far the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is concerned, a reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad 61 Anr., reported in AIR 1979 SC 1203, has been given. Therein the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Act of 1947 has been maintained. The learned Counsel further made a reference to the proviso to Se