JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of the connected Writ Petition No. 1802 of 2002 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone v. Baliram S/o Nandram Tailor and another, Writ Petition No. 1803 of 2002, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone v. Rajaram S/o Gangaram Rathore and another, Writ Petition No. 1810 of 2002 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone v. Ratanlal S/o Mukundram Shrivas and another, Writ Petition No. 1811 of 2002 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone v. Ramcharan S/o Nandu Singh Yadav and another, and Writ Petition No. 1812 of 2002 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone v. Shivkaran S/o Bhimaji Jadhav and another. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) The respondents are the employees of the petitioner Bank. Their wages were reduced in May, 1984 and as per the respondents it was a case of illegal deduction of wages. All the respondents filed separate applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity "the Act of 1947") before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Khandwa. By a common order dated July 4, 2002 the Labour Court, Khandwa allowed their applications, and set aside the order of reduction of wages and directed for the payment thereof. Before the Labour Court the petitioner Bank had taken an objection that the Labour Court is not having any jurisdiction in the matter and the respondents may refer the matter to the Co-operative Courts under Section 55 (2) and under Section 64 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (far brevity "the Act of 1960") but the learned Labour Court placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of this High Court in the case of Rashtriya Khandan Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Durg v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur and others 1975 JLJ 732, held that the Co-operative Courts as well as the Labour Court both are having concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, thus held that the applications under Section 33-C(2) is maintainable before the Labour Court and allowed their applications and passed the award, against which petitioner Bank has filed these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid award.

(3.) In view of the latest decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this High Court this controversy appears to have been settled. The Courts now have consistently held that when the dispute between Co-operative Society and its employee falls within the purview of the provisions of Sections 55 (2) and 64 of the Act of 1960, the same should be decided by a Competent Officer under the Act of 1960 and Labour Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide such disputes. In this connection, particularly the decision in the case of Sagarmal v. District Sahakari Kendriya Bank Ltd. Mandsaur and another 1997 (9) SCC 354 : 1998-III-LLJ (Suppl)-157 in which it has been held that there can be no doubt that the provisions of the Central Act; viz., the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not apply to the employees of the Respondents Co-operative Bank registered under State Act, and, therefore, the only question which could arise was of the availability of the remedy either under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 or under the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and in this case the Supreme Court has also ignored the Full Bench decision of this High Court in the case of Rashtriya Khandan Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Durg (supra). Thereafter in the case of R. C. Tiwari v. M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others 1997 (5) SCC 125 : 1997-II-LLJ-236, the Supreme Court has finally resolved the controversy and has held as under at p. 238 of LLJ: