Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. K. Tare C. J., M. L. Malik and C. P. Sen, JJ.
RASHTRIYA KHADAN MAZDOOR SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD
Versus
PRESIDENT OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT
Decided On : May 05,1975
There can be no doubt that before the Central or a State Government refers a dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication, the dispute must be raised by the concerned parties with the employer or the employee as the case may be. In the absence of such dispute being raised between the parties a reference to the Tribunal will not be tenable. AIR 1968 SC 529 relied on.
But where the employees raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and both the parties jointly moved the Central Government for referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, the employer cannot complain that as he did not raise the dispute the Central Government could not refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. [Paras 7 & 27
(2) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.10 - 'appropriate Government' employer carrying on business of raising iron ore-the appropriate Government is the Central Government.
Admittedly, the petitioner is carrying on business of raising iron ores from the mines i.e. mining. There can be no dispute that mining is an industry and any employee engaged in the mining operations is a workman in the mining industry. Any dispute between such employer and its employees would be industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such minerals as declared by special enactment are in the central list of the Constitution and as such the Central Government is the appropriate Government for reference of such dispute under section 10 of the Act. AIR 1974 SC 31 & 1973 JLJ 316 relied on. [Paras 26 & 42
(3) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.10 - notice served on Manager of the employer concern under registered post-Manager representing the employer before the Assistant Labour Commissioner-no objection raised there-objection as to non-service of the employer not tenable. [Para 27
(4) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Ss.10, 2-A & 2 (k) - not abrogated by sections 55 (2), 64, 82 & 92 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Constitution of India-Art. 254 (2).
(5) Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MP) - Ss.55 (2), 64; 82 & 92 - do not abrogate provisions of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Constitution of India-Art. 254 (2).
Per Malik & C. P. Sen, JJ., Tare, C. J. Cootra.- There is no repugnancy between the M. P. Co-operative Act and the Industrial Disputes Act and both can exist side by side. Co- operative Act has provided for settlement of different types of disputes than those disputes provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. There are no provisions in the Co-operative Act for settlement of collective disputes by reference by appropriate Government no provisions about strike and lock out, layoff and compensation, whereas the Industrial Disputes Act did not provide for settlement of Individual disputes of an employee. Under section 55(2) of the Co-operative Act, the Registrar has to decide dispute about terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken against an employee in terms of the provisions of the Co-operatives Act, the rules and bye-laws. Moreover, the Co-operative Act is an enactment under entry No. 32 of the State list regarding co-operative society and incidentally it has dealt with its employees about terms of employment, service conditions and disciplinary action. Broadly speaking, it is a State Act within the State list and so Article 254(2) is not at all attracted. In any case, there is no direct conflict between the two statutes and both occupy different fields and the Co• operative Act is not an exhaustive code on industrial disputes. [Para 37
The position has now changed in view of the amendments of the Industrial Disputes Act by amending Act No. 45/1965 and Act No. 45/1971 which came into force on 19-11-1965 and 8-12-71 respectively. Individual disputes are now Industrial disputes. Therefore under the provision to Article 754 (2), the Central Act will now prevail in view of the amendments subsequent to M. P. Co-operative Act of 1960 in respect of the same subject matter. Under the circumstances, employees of these co-operative societies engaged in industrial activities are to be governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and not by section 55 of the M. P. Co-operative Act, in view of the amendments of the Industrial Disputes Act in 1965 and in 1971 1968 JLJ 1068=1968 RN 641 overruled. AIR 1969 SC 1320 & AIR 197C SC 145 relied on. [Paras 40 & 43
( 1. ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a registered Co-operative Society, challenges the order of the Central Government, dated 6-4-1972 (Petitioners Annexure-D) as also the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal, dated 8-9-1972 (Petitioners Annexure-E)on the ground that the reference to the Industrial Tribunal was not maintainable in law in respect of the dismissal of the employee, by name, ramprasad and his wife, Smt. Jankibai, as they were employees of the petitioner co-operative Society and as such, the question of their dismissal or termination of service will be governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative societies Act, 1960, and not by the provisions of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
( 2. ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass: Ramprasad and his wife, Smt. Jankibai were servants of the petitioner, Co-operative Society. They were charged with an act of misconduct. The Society appointed an Enquiry Officer, who found them guilty. Therefore, their services were terminated by the Society. , The question of their dismissal was taken up by the third respondent, namely, the Samyukta Khadan Ma/door sangh and the Central Government, by order, dated 6-4-1972 (Petitioners annexure-D) referred the following question for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal:
"whether the Rastriya Khadan Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti, Post Office, Dalli-Rajhara, durg (Madhya Pradesh) is justified in terminating the services of Shri Ramprasad and shrimati Jankibai, with effect from the 5th May, 1971. If not, to what relief are these workmen entitled?" The said reference under section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was heard by the first respondent, the Presiding Officer of the Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. No reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner, Co-operative Society. The Industrial Tribunal, therefore, recor ded the evidence of Ramprasad, who stated that the charges levelled against him and his wife Smt. Jankibai were false and they had replied to the said charges. There was no inquiry at all and neither he nor his wife was given an opportunity to defend. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal, relying on the a ssertion of Ramprasad, held that there was no proper inquiry with regard to the charges made by the employer against the employees and that there was no opportunity to defend. Under the circumstances the order of termination of service was unwarranted and unjustified. The Industrial Tribunal, therefore, answered the reference to the effect that the Rastriya Khadan Mazdoor Sahakari samity, Durg, was nor justified in terminating the service of Ramprasad and his wife, Smt. Jankibai with effect from 5-5-1971. Accordingly, they were ordered to be reinstated in service and were directed to be paid their wages and other dues with effect from 5-5-1971.
( 3. ) IT does not appear that the question as to whether the matter is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, or the Central industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was at all raised before the Industrial Tribunal, nor does it appear to have been raised before the Central Government, which made a refever, it appears that the petitioner had raised such an objection before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vide Annexure-C. For this reason we have permitted the petitioner to raise this question before us besides the other question on merits.
( 4. ) BEFORE dealing with the main question involved in the present writ petition, we may dispose of the two other points, namely (i) that the matter being governed by the terms of the contract, the petitioner could dispense with the services of employees at pleasure and that an inquiry of any sort was necessary, and (ii) that the dispute not having been raised by the employees with the employer, the reference by the Central Government was not tenable and as such,
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
