PRESIDENT/SECRETARY ORDANCE FACTORY Vs. CONCILIATION OFFICER
LAWS(UTN)-2001-5-23
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (FROM: NAINITAL)
Decided on May 07,2001

President/Secretary Ordance Factory Appellant
VERSUS
CONCILIATION OFFICER Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GUJARAT STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. VERSUS P. R. MANKAD AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MAURANIPUR KISAN SAHKARI SEWA SAMITI,MAURANIPUR,DISTRICT JHANSI VERSUS STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. BRIJ NANDAN PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAMADITYA PANDEY VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI BASANTPUR LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [REFERRED TO]
SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.C.VERMA, J. - (1.)THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 3.4.2000 and 6.4.2000 and also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed with the proceedings pending before the Labour Court and to drop the proceedings.
(2.)THE petitioner is a cooperative Credit Society. The Society terminated the services of respondent No.2 Sri Sunil Kumar Gupta. The employee/workman filed a suit against the termination order. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 preferred first. appeal which is pending. During the pendency of the first appeal, respondent No. 2 raised a labour dispute under' Section 2A of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act before the Conciliation officer, who, after hearing both the parties, registered the case by the impugned order dated 3.4.2000, contained in Annexure -I to the writ petition, under Section 2 -A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and thereafter issued notice dated 6.4.2000 for necessary inquiry into the matter, so that the dispute may be settled between the parties and fixed 2.5.2000 for appearance of the parties.
(3.)THE petitioner has challenged the proceedings before the Conciliation officer under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act on the grounds (a) that in view of the provisions of Section 135 of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, the dispute could not be raised under Section 2 -A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act as by virtue of this Section the application of U. P. In doctrinal Disputes Act is excluded. The second ground of challenge of the petitioner is (b) that dispute, if any, between the Co -operative Society and its employees can be settled under Section 70 of the U. P. Co -operative Societies Act. Therefore, the proceeding initiated by conciliation officer is barred as remedy is available under the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act itself.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Sri Gopal Narain submitted that the provisions of Section 135 of the U. P. Co -operative Societies Act has not been enforced yet in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, bar contained in section 135 of the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act does not operate. He relied on three judgments of the Allahabad High Court i.e. (1) 1988 UPLBEC, page 555, Mauranipur Kisan Sahkari Sewa Samiti, Mauranipur, District Jhansi versus State of U. P. & others, District Jhansi versus State of U. P. & other, (ii) F. L. R. 1993 (67), page 87, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Baaantipur Ltd. Versus the presiding Officer, Labour Court and another and (Hi) 1999 (81) FLR, page 817, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Versus State of U. P. & others. In all these judgments, it has been noticed by the Allahabad High Court that the provisions of section 135 of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act have not been enforced yet as no notification has been issued by the State Government bringing into force the Section 135 of the U.P. Co -operative societies Act. Therefore, the question of ouster of jurisdiction to the Labour court is unsustainable. Rather the provisions of Regulation 103 of U. P. Co -operative Societies Employees' service Regulations, 1975 provides that the regulation which are inconsistent to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, U. P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and any other labour laws for the time being in force, if applicable to any co -operative society or class of co -operative societies, shall be deemed to be inoperative. The Hon'ble Apex court in Vikramaditya Pandey versus Industrial Tribunal, Luc -know reported in 2001 (88), F.L.R. page 741 considered the Regulation 103 of the U. P. Co -operative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 and held as under :

"By plain reading of the said Regulation it is clear that in case of inconsistency between the Regulations and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Act, the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and any other labour laws for the time being in force, if applicable to any co -operative society or class of co -operative societies, to that extent Regulations shall be deemed to be inoperative. In other words, the inconsistent provisions contained in the Regulations shall be improve, not the provisions of the other statutes mentioned in the Regulation 103."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.