- (1.) By this writ petition, challenge is made to the order dated 29.5.2013 holding inquiry to be unfair and subsequent award dated 3.10.2013 holding compulsory retirement of the respondent employee to be illegal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the reference, two parties were impleaded as employer. First was primary Cooperative Society which engage; the respondent and second is the petitioner herein. The reply to the statement of claim was submitted by the petitioner bank and had been adopted by the primary cooperative society, who had engaged and passed the order of compulsory retirement. After the reply, the arguments were heard on fairness of the inquiry. The inquiry thereupon held to be unfair vide order dated 29.5.2013. The award was passed soon thereafter on 3.10.2013 without providing an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charges. It is more so, when an application was filed by the primary cooperative society to provide them chance to lead evidence to prove charges. It was on declaring inquiry to be unfair vide order dated 29.5.2013. The said application was not decided rather considered in the award itself, whereas the application aforesaid should have been decided prior to the award. The petitioner, herein was expecting that the application of the primary cooperative society would be decided. The inquiry would thereupon be held in the Labour Court itself. They did not move application under those circumstances. The Labour Court committed grave illegality by passing award without deciding the application prior to it.
(2.) The other ground is regarding maintainability of the reference. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complete machinery to resolve the dispute has been provided under the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 2001'). The reference of sections 58 and 60 of the Act of 2001 has been given for it. In view of aforesaid, the reference was not maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1947). A further reference of Rules of 2003 has been given wherein the primary co-operative society can hold inquiry and pass order of punishment. The order of punishment is appealable under the Rules of 2003. In the present case, no appeal was preferred. In view of above also the reference under the Act of 1947 was not maintainable. To support the arguments, reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner and others, 2007 113 FLR 50 (SC), has been given. A further reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation, 1997 76 FLR 383 (SC), has been given.
(3.) In both the cases, the issue of jurisdiction under the Act of 1947 was considered. It was held that if remedy is provided under the Cooperative Society Act, there would be implied exclusion or jurisdiction of the Labour Court. In view of the judgment aforesaid, the impugned award deserves to be quashed. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute which is covered under section 58 of the Act of 2001.;