SAHAKARI VIPNAN SANSTHA Vs. LABOUR COURT INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows : The petitioner is a Marketing Co-operative Society registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred by) Section 55 (1) of the Act, (Sic) the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, has framed rules governing terms and conditions of employment in a Society registered under the Act. Sometime in the year 1979, the Committee of the Society was superseded by the Registrar and the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, District Khargone, was appointed as the officer in charge. in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 17 of the Rules, the officer in charge terminated the services of respondent No. 3, an employee of the Society. Respondent No.3 thereupon made an application for conciliation before the Government Labour Officer but as the conciliation failed, the Conciliation Officer made a report in that behalf to respondent No. 2, the Labour Commissioner. In exercise of the powers conferred upon mim by Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, respondent No 2 made a reference to respondent No. 1, the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute as to whether the termination of the services of respondent No. 3 was lawful and whether respondent No. 3 was entitled to any relief in that behalf. The reference was registered by the Labour Court as Reference No. 21/82 (ID). Respondent No. 3 filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court The petitioner resisted the claim of respondent No. 3 inter alia on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The objection regarding jurisdiction raised by the petitioner was overruled by the Labour Court, which made an award that the termination of services of respondent No. 3 was illegal The Labour Court directed the petitioner-Society to reinstate respondent No.3 with back wages. Aggrieved by the award made by the Labour Court, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) The only contention raised by Shri Chafekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the award made by the Labour Court was vitiated because the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by respondent No. 3, an employee of a Co-operative Society, as the dispute was exclusively triable by the Registrar under the provisions of the Act. In reply, Shri Sethi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, contended that the Labour with the award was made out.