HUCHEGOWDA Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has presented this Writ Petition praying for quashing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal presented by Respondent-3 and setting aside the order of the Arbitrator which was in favour of petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was an employee of the 3rd Respondent-society, since 16-8-1971. In January 1977 the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order of the 3rd Respondent-society. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short). The dispute was referred to the Arbitrator of Co-operative Societies, Mandya District, Mandya, for adjudication. By Order dated 1-8-1978, the Arbitrator held that the condition imposed to the effect that the petitioner would not be entitled to subsistence allowance was invalid. The Arbitrator further held that the petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance as also arrears of salary from the date of suspension till the date of his reinstatement. He also directed the 3rd Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and to pay subsistence allowance and arrears of salary from the date of suspension. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent-society preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 14-12-1979 held that as the subject matter of dispute between the petitioner and Respondent-3 related to the conditions of service of the petitioner, the petitioner can only raise an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, a dispute under Section 70 of the Act was not maintainable.

(3.) The Tribunal in para 7 of its order noticed clause (d) of Section 70(2) of the Act which was introduced into the Act by Act 19 of 1976 with effect from 20-1-1976. According to the said clause, a dispute concerning the conditions of service of an employee of a co-operative society could be raised under Section 70 of the Act. Even so, the Tribunal took the view that the provisions relating to the reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was a special provision and a dispute which can be raised under Section 70 of the Act was a general one and, therefore, the dispute was not maintainable.