- (1.) This Larger Bench has been constituted on a reference dated 15.12.2014 made by a Three Judge Bench. While hearing the Writ Appeals, a Division Bench expressed its doubt regarding the correctness of an earlier Division Bench Judgment reported in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co-operative Society v. Michael Sebastian, 2010 1 KerLT 938. The Division Bench referred the matter for consideration by a Full Bench vide its order dated 08.12.2010. Before the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions, the challenge was to the proceedings/orders passed by the State Government and Labour Courts in exercise of the jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1947 Act"). Appellants/Writ Petitioners are Co-operative Banks, i.e., Central Co-operative Societies who challenged the orders/proceedings under the 1947 Act on the ground that the proceedings initiated by the employees of the Co- operative Societies under the 1947 Act are without jurisdiction since jurisdiction under the 1947 Act is excluded by virtue of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1969 Act"). The Division Bench in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co-operative Society v. Michael Sebastian held that jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court under the 1969 Act and Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court under the 1947 Act is concurrent. The Division Bench expressed its doubt over the view taken in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co-operative Society v. Michael Sebastian in the following words: "The question raised in the connected writ appeals is whether industrial dispute between the management of a society and an employee should be settled before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to which it is referred by Government or whether it should be decided by the Arbitration Court under Section 69(2)(d) of the Co- operative Societies Act. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co- op.Society v. Michael Sebastian, 2010 1 KerLT 938 held that both the Industrial Tribunal and Co- operative Arbitration Court have concurrent jurisdiction for settling industrial disputes between management and workers of a society. This position is also supported by a earlier single Bench decision of this Court reported in Board of Directors, Edava Service Co-operative Bank v. Co-operative Arbitration Court and others, 2008 3 KerLJ 267. It is seen from the judgments that the Government Pleader conceded before the Division Bench that the amendment introduced in the year 2000 under Section 69(2)(d) of the Co-operative Societies Act was not assented to by the President. However, before us, counsel appearing for the society and the Government Pleader submitted that amendment may be only clarificatory and even the original provision of Section 69 (1)(c) takes in industrial disputes between societies and employees and with these provisions of the Act got the assent of the President. Section 69(1)(c) of the Act will prevail over the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by virtue of the operation of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. We find force in the contention of the counsel because, if the amendment made in 2000 is only clarificatory in nature, then the original provision in the statue takes in all industrial disputes which have to be settled exclusively by Arbitration Courts constituted under the Co-operative Societies Act. Prima facie, we are not able to concur with the view expressed by the Division Bench that the Arbitration Court, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. In our view, if the provision of the Co-operative Societies Act is valid, then the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court will not have jurisdiction in the matter and the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Arbitration Court will be exclusive by virtue of the operation of Article 254(2) of the Constitution. We, therefore, refer these cases for consideration by a Full Bench. Since counsel for the respondents pointed out that disputes are pending in various Forums, including Labour Court and the proceedings are stayed by this Court, we feel there is an urgent need to dispose of these cases by a Full Bench. The Registry will, therefore, take orders from the Honourable Chief Justice for decision of the issue by a Full Bench".
(2.) The Three Judge Bench was constituted in pursuance of the above reference made by the Division Bench. The Three Judge Bench noticed that there are two earlier Full Bench judgments of this Court which also needed consideration before answering the issues raised. The Three Judge Bench thus formulated eight issues which have arisen before the Full Bench and framed one more question, i.e., issue No.ix as to whether the two earlier Full Bench judgments of this Court lay down the correct law It is useful to re-produce the 9 Issues framed by the Three Judge Bench which are up for consideration before this Larger Bench: (i) Whether Sec.69 the 1969 Act as enacted contemplate disputes relating to service between the Co-operative Society and its employees to be referred to Labour Court for decision (ii) Whether Sec.69 as enacted intends to override any contrary provision in any law including the provisions of the 1947 Act by virtue of Sec.69(1) of the 1969 Act (iii) Whether the 1969 Act was enacted with Presidential assent (iv) Whether the Amendment Act 1 of 2000 by which amendments were made in Sec.69 of the 1969 Act are clarificatory in nature (v) Whether the Amendments made in Sec.69 of the 1969 Act by the Amendment Act 1 of 2000 are repugnant to the provisions of the 1947 Act and hence inoperative (vi) Whether for entertaining a dispute regarding disciplinary proceedings against employees and officers of the Co- operative Bank both the Co-operative Arbitration Court as well as the Labour Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction (vii) Whether the Co-operative Arbitration Court alone has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute pertaining to the disciplinary action initiated against the officers and employees of the Co-operative Bank and the Labour Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any such dispute (viii) Whether the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co-operative Society v. Michael Sebastian, 2010 1 KerLT 938 lays down the correct law (ix) Whether the Full Bench judgments of this Court - Balachandran v. Deputy Registrar, 1978 KerLT 249 (F.B.) as well as M.U.Sherly v. President, Parappuram Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., 2007 1 KerLT 809 lay down the correct law that under Sec.69 of the 1969 Act (unamended) the disputes of employees and officers of the Co-operative Societies regarding service matters cannot be adjudicated The Larger Bench concluded the hearing in these Writ Appeals and orders were reserved.
(3.) I had the advantage of going through the opinion prepared by esteemed Brother Justice Antony Dominic. Justice Antony Dominic in his elaborate opinion has concluded that jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the 1947 Act and that of the Arbitration Court under the 1969 Act regarding service matters of the employees of the Co- operative Societies are concurrent. The view expressed by the Division Bench in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co-operative Society v. Michael Sebastian has been re-iterated with further observation that the earlier two Full Bench judgments do not require reconsideration. I regret my inability to agree with the above opinion, hence I proceed to consider the Issues in the following manner: FACTS;