- (1.) The counsel for the parties were heard at length.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner, Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, is a cooperative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Societies Act, for brevity). The Government of Karnataka holds 90% of the share capital in the said society. A ginning and pressing factory at Hubli, is a unit run by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1, the Dharwad District Employees' Association, is said to represent workmen engaged by the petitioner at the said unit. The ginning factory, established in the year 1976, was intended to support cotton growers and traders in the area. The operation of the unit was seasonal, as it could operate only during the season when cotton was made available. Hence there was no need to employ a large contingent of permanent employees. When the unit was operational during the season, workmen were employed on daily wages and were paid once a week, for the number of days' of engagement. Owing to adverse conditions, such as lack of raw material, increasing costs, labour unrest and adverse marketing conditions - the petitioner took a decision to close down the unit. Accordingly, the petitioner is said to have issued a notice of closure in terms of Section 25FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act), declaring its intention to close down the unit with effect from 13-2-2002 as per notice dated 13-12-2001. According to the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, it had employed 17 permanent employees. And the total number of persons engaged by it during the preceding year, including daily wagers, was 73 in number. It is the petitioner's case that all those 73 workmen were paid closure compensation along with other benefits in accordance with Section 25FFF of the ID Act. In this regard the petitioner had produced all the relevant material before the competent authority, for verification of satisfactory compliance with the requirements under the above provisions of law. By way of a petition dated 29-1-2002 and a further representation dated 14-2-2002, the first respondent is said to have raised an industrial dispute, espousing the cause of the daily wage workers engaged by the petitioner as narrated above. In conciliation proceedings, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, the representative of the workmen and the petitioner were able to resolve the dispute and entered into a settlement dated 28-5-2002, under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the ID Act in the presence of the Conciliation Officer. The petitioner states that though it was legally obliged to address the demand .of only the 73 workmen, engaged by it during the relevant time, the petitioner had also considered the claim of 159 other persons who had been engaged by it at a point of time even prior to the one year preceding closure of the unit. The petitioner had accordingly paid an additional sum of Rs. 5.40 lakh to be distributed amongst those 159 other persons. This act of the petitioner was only in order to give a quietus to the dispute. It transpires that the first respondent had filed applications dated 21-10-2002 and 13-11-2002 claiming a sum of Rs. 9.02 lakh towards wages of 52 workmen for the period 11-1-2002 to 11-10-2002 and a sum of Rs. 7.80 lakh as wages in respect of 45 workmen for the same period as above, respectively. Upon receipt of notice from the second respondent in this regard the petitioner had opposed the applications while referring to the Settlement entered into earlier. The Second respondent has however, allowed the applications by orders dated 11-11-2003. The petitioner has approached this Court when the said amounts were sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, pursuant to the above orders.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioner raises the following contentions: Firstly, that the very applications filed under Section 33C(1) of the ID Act were not maintainable. The petitioner being a society governed under the provisions of the Societies Act and the first respondent having made a claim in respect of wages of employees on the ground that the closure was illegal - any such dispute would fall within the purview of Section 70(1) & (2) of the Societies Act. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of such disputes and there is an express bar on any other for exercising jurisdiction in respect of the same. Hence the impugned orders are wholly without jurisdiction.;