2003 (5) TMI 538 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of amendments to Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
2. Legislative competence of the State of Karnataka to amend Section 70.
3. Repugnancy between the State law and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Right of workers to be represented by the Union.
5. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Amendments to Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959:
The Karnataka Sugar Workers Federation challenged the amendments made to Section 70(1)(d) and Section 70(2)(d) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, arguing that the amendments ousted the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and conferred it on the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The petitioners contended that the amendments were contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court held that the amendments were valid and constitutional, noting that the amendments were within the legislative competence of the State and had received the President's assent, thereby saving them from any repugnancy issues with the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. Legislative Competence of the State of Karnataka to Amend Section 70:
The petitioners argued that the State of Karnataka lacked the legislative competence to amend Section 70, as the Industrial Disputes Act was a pre-constitutional legislation and the Parliament had the power to legislate on industrial disputes. The court held that the State was competent to legislate on matters pertaining to co-operative societies under Item 32 of List II and on industrial disputes under Item 22 of List III of the VII Schedule to the Constitution. The court further noted that the amendment had received the President's assent, thereby validating the legislative competence of the State.

3. Repugnancy Between the State Law and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The court addressed the issue of repugnancy by referring to Article 254(2) of the Constitution, which allows a State law to prevail over a Central law if it has received the President's assent. The court noted that the amendment to Section 70 had received the President's assent on 18.3.2000, thereby saving it from any repugnancy issues with the Industrial Disputes Act. The court also observed that the amendment expressly excluded the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal in matters covered under Section 70, thereby limiting the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. Right of Workers to be Represented by the Union:
The petitioners contended that the amendment deprived workers of their right to be represented by the Union and that the Presiding Officer under the KCS Act did not have the qualifications of a Judge. The court held that the argument was not tenable, noting that under the Industrial Disputes Act, an individual workman could raise a dispute without the aid of the union. The court further observed that the Registrar of Societies, though not a trained judicial person, was empowered under the statute to resolve disputes, similar to other authorities under various labour laws.

5. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal:
The court addressed the argument that the amendment excluded the jurisdiction of established courts or tribunals by noting that the KCS Act expressly excluded the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal in matters covered under Section 70. The court observed that even under the Industrial Disputes Act, an individual could raise a dispute without the union's aid, and such disputes could also be resolved by the Registrar under the KCS Act. The court upheld the validity of the amendment, noting that it was within the legislative competence of the State and had received the President's assent.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the validity of the amendments to Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, confirming the legislative competence of the State of Karnataka and addressing the issues of repugnancy and the right of workers to be represented by the Union. The court concluded that the amendments were constitutional and did not require reconsideration. The matters were referred back to the learned Single Judge for disposal on merits in accordance with the law.