Retrenchment of employee by the Society.

These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for records in C.P. Nos. 746 to 748 of 1957, and quash the order of the Labour Court, Madras, dated 24th September, 1958.

Th,e South Arcot Co-operative Motor Transport Society Ltd. (for Ex-Service-men) is a Society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, and is engaged in the running of lorries and motor transport services in South Arcot District. Syed Batcha, Appadurai and Kantian were amongst those who were employed by the petitioner in the transport services. It is stated that they were also shareholders in the Society. In 1957, the Society decided to close down the lorry service and confine its activities to motor transport only. As a consequence thereof, the Society had to discharge some of its workmen. There is no controversy that the discharge proposed was anything but. bona fide, occasioned by the abolition of a section of the petitioner’s business. By the proceedings, dated 16th November, 1957, the Society dispensed with the services of five persons, amongst whom were Syed Batcha, Appadurai and Kannan. The three persons, along with another filed applications under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disuutes Act before the Labour Court, Madras, claiming retrenchment compensation and earned leave wages, accumulated after the date of discharge. The applications were resisted by the petitioner-Society on various grounds, the substantial objection being that the Labour Court was not competent to take cognisance of the dispute between the Society and its servants. The Labour Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and that Syed Batcha, Kannan and Appadurai were entitled to relief by way of retrenchment compensation, and directed the payment of various sums, assessed in accordance with section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of the Labour Court in the above petitions.

The main contention urged before me on behalf of the petitioner is on the question of jurisdiction of the Labour Court to take cognisance of a claim by the servants of the Society. It is contended that the claim should be deemed to be one touching the business of the Society, and that the only authority entitled to decide the claim is that prescribed by section 51 of the Co-operative Societies Act. That provision states:

"(1) If any dispute touching the business of a registered Society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the Society or its committee against a paid servant of the Society) arises -

(a) .............

(b)................................

(c) between the Society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or servant or any past officer, past agent or past servant,, or the nominee, heirs or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased servant, of the Society,

(d) ..............................

such disputes shall be referred to the Registrar for decision.“

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Industrial Disputes Act should be deemed to be a general statute, providing for adjudication of all industrial disputes, and the Madras Co-operative Societies Act must be treated as a special enactment, governing the disputes between the Society and its servants, and that, therefore, any matter coming within the scope of the latter Act should be governed exclusively by the provisions of that Act. In support of the contention, reliance was placed upon an unreported judgment of Kuppuswami Iyer, J., in C.R.P. No. 1134 of 1940. The learned Judge held that a claim by a dismissed servant of a Cooperative Society for the recovery of provident fund due to him and additional amounts due to him by way of travelling allowance and other incidental payments was a claim touching the business of the Society, and could be agitated only under section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Ac