Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.P. MEHROTRA, J.
Brahmawarta Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar Dixit and Others - Respondent
Decided on : 27-02-2007
Industrial Disputes Act - Cooperative Society - U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, Sections 70, 71, 128, 135 - The U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 provides a complete machinery for dealing with the disputes between a Cooperative Society and its employees. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable in case of a Cooperative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The provisions of Section 135 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 have not been brought into force, but the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 prevails over the provisions of the general law. The proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were without jurisdiction, and the orders passed in such proceedings were null and void.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Cooperative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, sought to quash orders related to an industrial dispute raised by an employee. The employee had invoked provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 provides a complete machinery for resolving disputes between Cooperative Societies and their employees. The proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were without jurisdiction, and the orders passed in such proceedings were null and void.
Issues: The main issue was whether the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were applicable to a Cooperative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
Ratio Decidendi: The U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 provides a complete machinery for dealing with disputes between a Cooperative Society and its employees. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable in case of a Cooperative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
Final Decision: The proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were without jurisdiction, and the orders passed in such proceedings were null and void. The present writ petition was allowed, and the proceedings and orders related to the industrial dispute were quashed. The decision will not prejudice the right of the employee to seek appropriate remedies under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
S.P. MEHROTRA, J.
1. The present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 3.12.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).
2. It appears that the petitioner, Brahmawarta Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kanpur, is registered under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter also referred to as "the Societies Act, 1965"), and is governed by the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the bye-laws of the said Bank.
3. It may be mentioned that the averments in this regard have been made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 (Rajendra Kumar Dixit), it is stated that "the contents of paragraph Nos. 3 of the writ petition are denied and reply of this contents will be at the time of hearing".
4. As only a vague denial of the averments made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition was made in the said paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, Shri Shravan Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has been asked by the Court, during the course of arguments, whether the respondent No. 1 is disputing that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society and is governed by the provisions of the Societies Act, 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder and the bye-laws of the Society.
5. Shri Shravan Dwivedi has stated that the said facts averred in paragraph 3 of the writ petition are not disputed.
6. It further appears that the respondent No. 1 (Rajendra Kumar Dixit) was employed as Clerk/Cashier in the petitioner Bank. An enquiry was conducted against the respondent No. 1 (Rajendra Kumar Dixit) by an Inquiry Officer in regard to various alleged irregularities and misconducts allegedly committed by the respondent No. 1 (Rajendra Kumar Dixit).
7. It further appears that pursuant to the said enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, by the order dated 26.10.1993, terminated the services of the respondent No. 1 (Rajendra Kumar Dixit).
8. Thereupon it appears that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No. 1 (Rajendra Kumar Dixit), and the matter was referred to the labour court. The case before the labour court was registered as Adjudication Case No. 155 of 1994.
9. It further appears that the labour court gave its Award dated 8.10.1997 in favour of the respondent No. 1 (Rajendra Kumar Dixit).
10. It further appears that the petitioner Bank challenged the said Award before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22709 of 1998 wherein an interim order dated 27.7.1998 was passed.
11. Copy of the said interim order dated 27.7.1998 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
12. It further appears that the respondent No. 1 (Rajendra Kumar Dixit) moved applications u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which were registered as Misc. Cases before the labour court. The labour court passed orders dated 22.9.2000 in the said misc. cases whereupon the petitioner Bank filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2000 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1051 of 2000 before this Court. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2000, an interim order dated 12.1.2001 was passed by this Court. The said interim order dated 12.1.2001 is reproduced in paragraph 11 of the writ petition.
13. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1051 of 2000, this Court passed an interim order dated 22.9.2000, which is quoted in paragraph 12 of the writ petition.
14. It further appears that the respondent No. 1 (Rajendra Kumar Dixit) thereafter filed four applications u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which were registered as Misc. Case Nos. 72 of 2002, 20 of 2001. 47 of 2001 and 193 of 2000. The said misc. cases were consolidated, and Misc. Case No. 193 of 2000 was made the leading case.
15. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur (respondent No. 3) passed a common order dated 26.8.2003 deciding all the aforesaid four misc. cases.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
