SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The core issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to pass an award on the reference of dispute raised by an employee of Cooperative Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act?
(2.) Petitioner who had raised the dispute, was found to be a workman and it was also found that he had completed more than 240 days prior to his being to his removed from service and also that there had been non compliance of Section 25-F of Act of 1947. The respondent-society was found to be coming within the meaning of definition of industry in terms of Section 2(S) of the Act but the Labour Court refuse to grant relief on the ground of maintainability, in view of judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sawai Madhopur Cooperative Marketing Society v. Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal; 1979(2) RLR 555.
(3.) The view taken by this Court in the aforesaid judgment of service matters being dealt with under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 shall be deemed to be over ruled impliedly in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited v. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhandange; 2017(5) SCC 623 wherein it has been held as under:- "8. We may state at the outset that it was conceded at the Bar that if the employee of a cooperative society is covered by the definition of 'workman' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and claims a relief of reinstatement, in that event the Cooperative Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim, inasmuch as, relief of reinstatement cannot be granted by the Cooperative Court. Such a relief can only be granted by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act having regard to the fact that special and complete machinery for this purpose is provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands ousted. This is so held by this Court consistently in a number of judgments[2]. These observations are made on the premise that even if it is accepted that the Cooperative Court established under the Act is a substitute of a Civil Court, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant relief would not go beyond the jurisdiction which has been vested in the Civil Court. When admittedly the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to grant any such relief and its jurisdiction is barred in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, as a fortiorari, the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court shall also stand barred. 10. Even when the employees falling under any of the aforesaid three categories raise dispute qua their termination, the Civil Court is not empowered to grant reinstatement and the remedy would be, in the first two categories, by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or the Administrative Tribunal Act, as the case may be, and in the third category, it would be under the Industrial Disputes Act. An employee who does not fall in any of the aforesaid exceptions cannot claim reinstatement. His only remedy is to file a suit in the Civil Court seeking declaration that termination was wrongful and claim damages for such wrongful termination of services. Admittedly, the appellant Corporation is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The respondent also cannot be treated as a Government/public servant as he was not under the employment of any Government. He was also not 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act as he was working as Manager with the appellant Corporation." ;