1979 (1) TMI 245 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 to the appellant Bank.
2. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court vs. the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act.
3. Interpretation of "any dispute touching the business or management of the Society" under the Cooperative Societies Act.
4. Whether the dispute qualifies as an industrial dispute or a civil dispute.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 to the appellant Bank:
The appellant Bank argued that the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (B.I.R. Act) was not applicable to it as it was a Cooperative Society governed by the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. However, the Court noted that by Notification No. BIR-1362-5-H, dated March 2, 1963, the Government of Gujarat directed that all provisions of the B.I.R. Act shall apply to the business of banking by Cooperative Banks in Saurashtra and Kutch areas. The Court concluded that the appellant is a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of banking and, as such, the B.I.R. Act is applicable to it by virtue of the said Notification.

2. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court vs. the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act:
The appellant contended that the dispute should be adjudicated by the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act, not by the Labour Court. The Court examined the relevant provisions of both the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It noted that Section 96 of the 1961 Act, which includes a non-obstante clause, mandates that any dispute touching the constitution, management, or business of a Society shall be referred to the Registrar. However, the Court emphasized that the nature of the dispute raised by the second respondent (termination due to alleged victimization for trade union activities) is an industrial dispute, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Labour Court as per the B.I.R. Act.

3. Interpretation of "any dispute touching the business or management of the Society" under the Cooperative Societies Act:
The Court analyzed whether the dispute falls within the scope of "any dispute touching the business or management of the Society" as per Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The term "dispute" was interpreted in a narrower sense, limited to contested claims of a civil nature, which could have been decided by civil or revenue courts but for the provisions of compulsory arbitration by the Registrar. The Court concluded that a dispute involving the termination of an employee due to victimization for trade union activities does not fall within this scope and is instead an industrial dispute.

4. Whether the dispute qualifies as an industrial dispute or a civil dispute:
The Court determined that the second respondent's claim (alleging unfair termination due to trade union activities and seeking reinstatement with back wages) is not a civil dispute but an industrial dispute. The Court highlighted that such disputes, which do not stem from the contract of employment but from statutory rights under the B.I.R. Act, can only be resolved by the Labour Court. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, which established that disputes regarding conditions of service of workmen employed by a society are not disputes touching the business of the society and fall outside the jurisdiction of the Registrar.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Labour Court has jurisdiction over the industrial dispute raised by the second respondent, and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is applicable to the appellant Bank. The dispute does not fall within the scope of "any dispute touching the business or management of the Society" under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The Court awarded costs against the appellant and directed an honorarium to be paid to the amicus curiae.