$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Order: 19.09.2024 + W.P.(C) 11057/2024 & CM Appl.45715/2024 SUNIL KUMAR TEWATIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Narender Kumar, Advs.

versus JAIN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Ravi Singh Chhikara, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (ORAL)

1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Appellant impugning the award dated 07.11.2023 [hereinafter referred to as “the Impugned Award”] passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, POLC-8, Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Award, the complaint filed by the Petitioner/Workman was dismissed by the learned Labour Court on the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in view of the specific bar as placed by the provisions of Section 70(1)(b) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as “DCS Act”].

2. Notice in the present Petition was issued on 09.08.2024. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent sought time to examine the matter and take instructions, and if necessary, file a Counter-Affidavit. No Counter-Affidavit has been filed by the Respondent till today.

2.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that no Counter-

Affidavit is necessary to be filed and he will make oral submissions.

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposal today.

4. The brief facts are that the Petitioner was working as a Clerk-cum- Cashier with the Respondent since the year 2001. The Petitioner was removed from the services of the Respondent, after which The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute inter alia alleging that his services have been terminated illegally or unjustifiably and also filed a Petition before the Industrial Tribunal.

4.1 By the Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court found that the action of the Respondent/Bank of terminating the services of the Petitioner comes within purview of Section 70(1)(b) of the DCS Act and that only the Registrar of Cooperative Societies Act is competent to decide such a dispute, dismissing the claim petition filed by the Petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner was removed from the services pursuant to a disciplinary action, initiated by the Respondent.

5.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further seeks to rely upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter titled as K.A. Annamma v. Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 729, to submit that the learned Labour Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Cooperative Societies Act and that the Tribunal can adjudicate upon such a dispute provided it is satisfied that the employee concerned is a ‘Workman’ and that the dispute raised by him is an ‘Industrial Dispute’. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that both these pre-requisites stand satisfied in the present case and that the Respondent has not raised any objection with regard either to the status of the Petitioner as being a workman or that this is not an industrial dispute.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submits that the issue with respect to jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court is a legal issue, which has been correctly decided by the learned Labour Court.

6.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the action taken against the Petitioner was not a disciplinary action since he had “voluntarily abandoned/resigned his services”, and thus, the exception in Rule 70(1) of the DCS Rules is not applicable in the present case. In this regard, he seeks to rely upon the Reply dated 02.02.2023 filed by the Respondent before the learned Labour Court. The relevant extract is below:

“10. That the contents of para no. 10 are wrong, false and vehemently denied. It is submitted that even after repeated letters to claimant he did not report back for duty. It is further submi