- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order/recovery certificate dated 19.9.1998 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Kshetra, Agra in exercise of powers under Section 6-H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on application moved on behalf of the Co- operative Bank Staff Association, 97 Shastri Nagar, Kirti Nagar, Mathura-an association of employees of the Mathura Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Mathura for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,75,059-79/-. The impugned recovery certificate purports to have been issued for the recovery of the money due to 113 employees/workmen of the Mathura Zila Sahkari Bank under a settlement arrived at between the petitioner (Management of the district Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mathura) on one hand and the workmen represented by U.P. Bank Employees Union, Central Office, Subhash Road, Aligarh on the other in adjudication case No. 53 of 1963. The money claimed was payable to the employees, according to the 'settlement' as ex gratia (reward).
(2.) Sri H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the bipartite settlement arrived at between the parties in adjudication case referred to above, ceased to be operative after expiry of a period of five years as per clause 6 of the bipartite agreement dated 25.11.1964 (Annexure-7) learned counsel submitted that the bipartite agreement not only ceased to be operative after expiry of the period of five years but it would also be deemed to have been substituted by statutory conditions of service laid down by the U.P. Co-operative Societies Service Regulations, 1975 framed by the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board and published in U.P. Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 6.1.1976 after approval by the State Government as required by sub-section (2) of Section 122 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The petitioner, urged the learned counsel, was bound by the directions issued by the Registrar vide letter dated 10.5.1995 not to pay ex gratia to the employees and not by the bipartite agreement dated 25.11.1964. Sri Tripathi further submitted that the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had no application in respect of the dispute involved herein in view of the Section 135 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 which provides that the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would not apply to Co-operative Societies and in any case, submitted the learned counsel, the proceedings under Section 6-H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were barred by Section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Sri K.P. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted, inter alia, that notwithstanding the expiry of the period of its operation, the bipartite agreement would continue to be operative and binding on the petitioners until its substitution by a new agreement or until a period of two months had elapsed from the date notice in writing of intention to terminate the settlement was given by one of the parties to the other. Sri K.P. Agrawal placed reliance on Section 19(6} of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to buttress his submission. Learned counsel further submitted that service benefits extended to the workmen under the bipartite agreement referred to above and the wages payable to them as per bipartite agreement would not be automatically reduced after expiry of the period of its operation.
(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the Bar. With a view to appreciating the submissions it would be necessary to refer to Section 6-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and other related provisions of law. Section 6-H reads as under : "6-H. Recovery of money due from an employer. (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under the provisions of Sections 6-J to 6-R or under a settlement or award, or under an award given by an adjudicator or the State Industrial Tribunal appointed or constituted under this Act, before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be specified in this behalf by the State Government, and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in sub-section (1). (3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner in the prescribed manner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case.";