Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is a cooperative society (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner -mill) registered under the Punjab Co operative Societies Act, 1955 for the principal purpose of establishing and running a sugar mill for the economic development of the State of Punjab. The Sugar Mill was established by the Petitioner at Morinda in the year 1962. It has employed about 230 permanent employees, with additional hands totalling about 700 to 7:0 during the season. Respondent No. 1 was employed by the Petitioner -mill in the year 1963 and his services were terminated by the Petitioner mill from 30th September, 1969. Demand notice was issued on behalf of the worker by its Union and also individually by the workman and ultimately the dispute was referred by the labour Commissioner, Punjab, vide order dated July 10, 1970, to the Labour Court, Ludhiana, for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Industrial Act') -The reference was in the following terms: - Whether the termination of services of Om Parkash workman is justified and in order ? if not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled ? It was alleged before the Labour Court by the workman that he was working since 1962, and his services were wrongly retrenched and that his retrenchment is unjustified ; firstly on the ground of malafide and secondly for non -compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Act; and he prayed that he may be reinstated with full back wages. His claim was resisted by the Petitioner -mill and the parties contested on the following issues before the Labour Court: (1) Whether the present references are illegal and without jurisdiction as alleged in the preliminary objections of the written statement ? (2) Whether the termination of services of the workmen concerned in each case is justified and in order ? (3) If issue No. 2 is found against the Respondent, to what relief/exact amount of compensation are the workmen concerned entitled.
(2.) SINCE the representatives of the Petitioner -mill did not advance any argument on issue No. 1, it was decided against them. Regarding issue No. 2 it was held that retrenchment was bona fide and not malafide but since it was in contravention of the provisions of Section 26 -F of the Industrial Act it was illegal and invalid. Under issue No. 3 the Labour Court directed the Petitioner -mill to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and back wages for the unemployed period. Dissatisfied with the award of the Labour Court the Petitioner -mill filed the present petition. Mr. V. N Koura, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner -mill, argued that the Petitioner -mill is a co operative society registered under the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, hence the provisions of the Industrial Act are not applicable to them. Since it is a dispute between the employee and the management it squarely falls within the scope of Section 55 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961.
(3.) THE argument of the Learned Counsel is that the Petitioner -mill is registered under the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act and that a dispute between the workman and the management could only be referred to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 55 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961. I do not find any merit in this contention. Section 55 is reproduced below: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co -operative society arises (a) among members, past members or persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or persons claiming through a member, past member and deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or liquidator past or present, or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society, or (d) between the society and any other co -operative society, between a society and liquidator or another society or between the liquidator of one society and the Liquidator of another society such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purposes of Sub -section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co -operative society, namely: - (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representative of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not. (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co -operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. The reading of this section shows that only a dispute, touching the Constitution, management or business of the co operative society which arises among members, or between a member and employee of the Society or between the society and employee are referable to the Registrar for decision but the present dispute regarding the termination or retrenchment of the services of the workman cannot be termed as touching the Constitution, management or business of the Petitioner mill and referred to the Registrar This aspect of the matter is concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s The Bhatia Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhatinda v. The State of Punjab L.P.A. No. 312 of 1969. L.P.A. No. 312 of 1962, decided on 16th July, 1970 and The Jullundur Transport Cooperative Society, Jullundur v. The Punjab State : AIR 1959 P&H. 34. In Jullundur Transport (supra) case it has been held by this Court as under: The disputes contemplated by Section 50 are not intend d by the Legislature to cover all of kinds of disputes and this provision is not meant to be all embracing. A reading of Sub -section (1) of Section 50 clearly snows that though the words "touching the constitution of business of the society" are unqualified and extremely wide and comprehensive, still the Legislature did not intend to include in this expression" industrial disputes" for the adjudication of which the Parliament has enacted the Industrial Disputes Act. The proviso to Sections 50(1) supplies a key to the intention of the Legislature and it almost conclusively suggests that it is only such disputes as are capable of being tried by a regular suit which are covered by the provisions of Section 50. It is also significant that there is no provision in the Co operative Societies Act which excludes the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Disputes which may arise between co -operative societies and their workmen Besides, the Industrial Disputes Act is a special enactment dealing with the special subject of industrial disputes and special provisions have been made in this statute for setting up Tribunals qualified for adjudicating upon them. The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, when considered in this light is, on the other hand, a general enactment and its provisions must yield to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act whenever the provisions of the latter Act are by their language clearly applicable to a particular dispute;