9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (4) TMI 676 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the jurisdiction of Labour Court under the ID Act, was barred by section 70 of the KCS Act with reference to co- operative societies and if so, from when? Even if Labour Court had jurisdiction, whether the appellant was entitled to file an application under Section 10(4A) of ID Act in respect of a cause of action which occurred in 1978?
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) vis-`a-vis Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act). 2. Validity of the application under Section 10(4A) of the ID Act concerning a cause of action from 1978. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Labour Court under the ID Act vis-`a-vis Section 70 of the KCS Act: Background and Amendments: - The appellant, a daily-wage labourer, claimed illegal termination from the Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur, effective from 1.3.1980. He approached the Labour Court in 1988 under Section 10(4A) of the ID Act, seeking reinstatement and back-wages. - The respondent contended that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction due to Section 70 of the KCS Act, which was amended in 1976 and 2000 to include disputes between co-operative societies and their employees under the Registrar's purview. Legal Examination: - Section 70 of the KCS Act, as amended in 1976, did not exclude the jurisdiction of Labour Courts under the ID Act. It merely provided an alternative forum for adjudication. - The 2000 amendment to Section 70, which received the President's assent, explicitly excluded the jurisdiction of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals for disputes arising from 20.6.2000 onwards. - The Supreme Court clarified that before 20.6.2000, Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals had concurrent jurisdiction with the Registrar under the KCS Act. Judgment: - The Labour Court's award in 1996 was valid as it had jurisdiction at that time. - The High Court's reliance on the decision in Veerashiva Co-operative Bank, which misinterpreted the exclusion of Labour Court jurisdiction, was erroneous. - Consequently, the Labour Court's jurisdiction was upheld for disputes prior to 20.6.2000, and the award made in 1996 was not without jurisdiction. 2. Validity of the Application under Section 10(4A) of the ID Act: Background: - The appellant's termination was found to have occurred on 19.2.1978, but the application under Section 10(4A) was filed on 4.10.1988. - Section 10(4A) was introduced on 7.4.1988, allowing individual workmen to challenge termination orders within six months from the date of communication of the order or the date of commencement of the amendment, whichever is later. Legal Examination: - The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 10(4A) did not intend to revive stale or non-existing claims. It aimed to provide a direct remedy for recent terminations. - The provision was meant to give a uniform six-month period for filing claims from the date of the amendment for terminations communicated within six months before 7.4.1988. - Claims for terminations communicated before 7.10.1987 were not maintainable under Section 10(4A) as they were considered stale. Judgment: - The appellant's claim, filed in 1988 for a termination in 1978, was deemed stale and non-maintainable under Section 10(4A). - The Labour Court erred in entertaining the claim, and the High Court's decision to set aside the award was upheld, albeit for different reasons. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court's jurisdiction for disputes prior to 20.6.2000 but dismissed the appellant's claim as it was filed beyond the permissible period under Section 10(4A) of the ID Act. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was to bear their respective costs.
|
