9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order explaining the scope of the powers of the Registrar under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. 2. According to the appellant under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975 framed by U.P. Cooperative Industrial Service Board and which has also been approved by the Governor and published in the official gazette under Section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, a full fledged remedy and mechanism to agitate the grievances of the employees of Cooperative Societies are already contained. According to the appellant, the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 being a special enactment will prevail over the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and in any view of the matter application made by the employees of the Bank under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. I.D. Act on the basis of an agreement improperly entered into is not maintainable. Therefore, it is submitted that the Addl. Labour Commissioner U.P. Ghaziabad exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order dated 15.03.2003. 3. By the said order, the Addl. Labour Commissioner allowed the payment of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be met by the Chairman by the 20th of February, 2001. 1. The payment of the ex-gratia amounts pertaining to the year 1999-2000 to the Bank employees on basis of their character rolls. 2. Payment of one special increment to employees on completion, by them of ten years, continuous service in accordance with the circular letter of the Registrar. On the above-mentioned assurance, both the organizations, keeping in view the interest of the bank, decided that the resorting to the total strike proposed prior to 24.1.2001 in accordance with the programme fixed after sending the notice No. C-I dated 26.12.2000 by both the organizations is deferred to 20.02.2001. This consensus also was arrived at that if on account of any circumstances, the demands are not met satisfactorily within the said fixed period, the programme proposed on 24.01.2001 under the Notice referred to above, will be commenced with effect from 21.2.2001, to the legality whereof the Chairman agreed. Both the sides, after going through this agreement and after having agreed to the agreement, signed the same this 23rd day of January, 2001 at 5.00 p.m. at the Bank Head Quarters R-2/100, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in exercise of powers of the Registrar conferred by the Government Order No. 3328-C/12. CA 25(1)/67 dated 24.6.1969, do hereby require the Chairman/Board of Directors, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ghaziabad under Section 128(1) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, to re-consider the Resolution No. 14 dated 13.1.2001 and Resolution No... dated 3.2.2001, which are in respect of the payment of ex-gratia amounts to bank employees. The said exercise may please be completed within 15 days. Please ensure the action under reference, within the ambit of the circular letter issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lucknow. Sd/- Naval Kishore Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, U.P. Meerut Division Meerut. 8. On 25.02.2001, Board of Directors noted the ban on ex- gratia and still decided to pay the same for 1999-2000 onwards. THE GHAZIABAD DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Head Office: R-2/100, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad RESOLUTION NO. 9: passed under other Items (1) at the Seventh Annual General Body Meeting held on 25.2.2001. The Secretary again wrote to the Chairman to refer BOD Resolution dated 25.02.2001 to the Registrar. The Chairman fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re attached only to the original copy of the application for ready reference and marked respectively as Annexure 'A' 'B'. Xxx xxxx 11. The bank filed objections before the Additional Labour Commissioner (hereinafter called 'the ALC;) referring to the ban on ex-gratia and Registrar's directions dated 07.03.2001 and 19.03.2001 to reconsider. On 15.05.2001, the ALC allowed the application under Section 6H and issued recovery certificate on the ground that the employer (Bank) has no objection. The said order reads thus: ORDER Dated 15.5.2001: The parties are present. On behalf of the employers, written statement has been filed. The workman-side has to file no records. Hence the proceedings relating hearing are closed. On behalf of the workmen, a demand has been raised towards payment of sum of money on the basis of agreement, which has been denied by the employers. No objection about the amount of money mentioned in the application has been raised on behalf of the employers. Hence, the recovery certificate for the ordered sum of money be issued. Sd/- Illegible Endt. Bank's letter No. Mu.Ka/01-02/Prasha/1137 dated 14.5.2001 has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicated rights i.e. a determined sum to be paid. Writ Petition No. 12890 of 2003 was filed by the Bank against the above order passed by the ALC dated 15.03.2003 was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 04.04.2003. 15. We heard Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ratnakar Das, learned senior counsel in C.A. No. 5231 of 2004 and Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned Counsel for R1 and Ms. Indira Jaisingh, learned senior counsel ably assisted by Mr. Bharat Sangal, learned Counsel for R2 to R4. LACK OF JURISDICTION: 16. Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the ALC's jurisdiction was wrongly invoked and his order dated 15.03.2002 under Section 6H of the U.P. I.D. Act was without jurisdiction, null and void. According to Mr. Sunil Gupta, the general legal principle is that, general act should yield to the subject act. Upon this general principle of law, the intention of the U.P. Legislature is clear, namely, that the special enactment, U.P.CS Act, 1965 alone should apply in the matter of employment of cooperative societies to the exclusion of all labour laws. 17. For this proposition, Mr. Sunil Gupta reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he alternative, Mr. Gupta contended that ALC, in law is not competent to declare the statutory order of the Registrar under Section 128 of the Act to be not proper and thereby the same has to be disregarded. An order under Section 128 is final and binding and cannot be questioned in any Court in view of Section 102. FINALITY CLAUSE: 20. According to Mr. Gupta, the Registrar's directions and order dated 07.03.2001, 19.03.2001 and 22.06.2001 requiring the Board of Directors to reconsider its offending resolutions and finally annulling the same in exercise of his powers under Section 128 are statutory in nature and have become finally binding under Section 102 as no appeal was filed under Section 98 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Mr. Gupta then made further submissions with regard to Section 128, Rule 130 and 131. According to the learned senior counsel the ALC and the High Court wrongly treat the Secretary's functions and procedure under Rule 130 as substituting rather than merely supplementing the Chairman's power and procedure, including suo motu power and procedure under Section 128 of the Act, read with Rule 131. It was further submitted that the Secr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visors and other employees. It was submitted that only those employees who are not covered by the provisions of the U.P. I.D. Act would fall within the ambit of Sections 121-122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. On the other hand, the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been held to be a special statute in matters of settlement of Industrial disputes arising out of the terms and conditions of service of employees who fall within the definition of workmen, provided they are employed in establishments covered by the said Act. In regard to various establishments which have their own services rules, the U.P.I.D. Act will still apply to workmen employed therein. Learned senior counsel cited various decisions of this Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Hari Shankar Jain and Ors. 1978 (4) SCC 16, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur and Ors. (1981)ILLJ1SC , Allahabad District Cooperative Ltd. v. Hanuman Dutt Tiwari AIR1982SC120a and The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors. (1975)IILLJ445SC in support of this contention. It was then submitted that the U.P. I.D. Act is a special statute dealing wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Cooperative Ltd. v. Hanuman Dutt Tiwari AIR1982SC120a and Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Workers Union (2006)IIILLJ559SC . 25. Learned senior counsel submitted that Section 128 also does not assist the Appellant in this regard. The said section clearly provides that the powers of the Registrar to annul any resolution only applies if the said resolution is not covered by the objects of the society or is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the bye-laws of the society as held by this Court terms and conditions of service of employment do not fall within the expression objects of the society . The said Section 128 does not grant powers to the Registrar to annul such resolutions if deemed contrary to the Regulations , which are excluded by their explicit absence from Section 128. Hence, the Registrar has no power to annul resolution dealing with the terms and conditions of employment of the employees of the Society. In any event there is nothing in the resolutions contrary to the regulation. This is further strengthened by Rule 130(2) which provides that if the Resolution is not covered by Section 128 then i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutes themselves are very clear on the question of applicability, the question of implied repeal does not arise. In this case, the existence of but not having been enforced, Section 135 in the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act makes it clear that Labour Laws apply unless specifically excluded by the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Hence the argument of implied repeal is misplaced. A reading of Regulation 103 also makes it clear that Labour Laws will prevail over the Regulations framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. In this case, the intention of the legislature is clearly expressed in Section 135 i.e. unless excluded by statutes the Labour Laws will apply. The Section actually exclude the application of Labour Laws but the legislation actually has not brought it into force. 30. In any event, there is a presumption against a repeal by implication; and the reason of this Rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a law has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject matter, and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation. The doctrine of implied repeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a settlement is optional. Thus the present settlement cannot be said to be 'not a settlement' as alleged. 33. The present appeal has arisen out of proceedings under the U.P.I.D. Act and not the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The Union on behalf of 167 workmen and for enforcing a right to receive ex gratia payment, whose payment has, admittedly continued for more than 23 years and agreed to by the Bank in terms of the settlement dated 23.1.2001 filed an application under Section 6-H which provides that where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement, the workman may make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him. 34. The present dispute is not any dispute relating to the Constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society and, therefore, the machinery provided in Section 70 or 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act would not be available to the employees of the Bank to enforce the settlement. The employees are constrained to approach the Additional Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H(1) of the Act to enforce the payment. It is the Bank which has sought to introduce the provisions of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -operative Societies to the exclusion of all other Labour Laws. It is a complete code in itself as regards employment in co-operative societies and its machinery and provisions. The general Act the UPID Act, 1947 as a whole has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the UPCS Act. This is also clear from necessary implication that the legislature could not have intended 'head-on-conflict and collision' between authorities under different Acts. In this regard reference can be made to decisions of this Court in the case of The Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. The Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (1969)IILLJ698SC where this Court observed that: Applying these tests, we have no doubt at all that the dispute covered by the first issue referred to the Industrial Tribunal in the present cases could not possibly be referred for decision to the Registrar under Section 61 of the Act. The dispute related to alteration of a number of conditions of service of the workmen which relief could only be granted by an Industrial Tribunal dealing with an industrial dispute. The Registrar, it is clear from the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 62(4) of the Act, he is specifically required to decide the dispute referred to him in accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws. It may also be noticed that a dispute referred to the Registrar under Section 61 of the Act can even be transferred for disposal to a person who may have been invested by the Government with powers in that behalf, or may be referred for disposal to an arbitrator by the Registrar. Such person or arbitrator, when deciding the dispute, will also be governed by the mandate in Section 62(4) of the Act, so that he will also be bound to reject the claim of the workmen which is nothing else than a request for alteration of conditions of service contained in the bye-laws. It is thus clear that, in respect of the dispute relating to alteration of various conditions of service, the Registrar or other person dealing with it under Section 62 of the Act is not competent to grant the relief claimed by the workmen at all. On the principle laid down by this Court in the case of the Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., therefore, it must be held that this dispute is not a dispute covered by the provisions of Section 61 of the Act. Such a dispute is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) and U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr. (supra). 39. Also if we refer to the general principles of Statutory Interpretation as discussed by G.P. Singh , in his treatise on 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation' , we can observe that, a prior general Act may be affected by a subsequent particular or special Act if the subject-matter of the particular Act prior to its enforcement was being governed by the general provisions of the earlier Act. In such a case the operation of the particular Act may have the effect of partially repealing the general Act, or curtailing its operation, or adding conditions to its operation for the particular cases. The distinction may be important at times for determining the applicability of those provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897, (Interpretation Act, 1889 of U.K. now Interpretation Act, 1978) which apply only in case of repeals. 40. A general Act's operation may be curtailed by a later Special Act even if the general Act will be more readily inferred when the later Special Act also contains an overriding non-obstante provision. Section 446(1) of the Companies Act 1956 (Act 1 of 1956) provides t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. 41. We are therefore of the view that the Asst. Labour Commissioner (ALC)'s jurisdiction was wrongly invoked and his order dated 15.03.2003 under Section 6H, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is without jurisdiction and hence null and void and it can be observed that, in view of the said general legal principle, it is immaterial whether or not the government has enforced Section 135 (UPCS Act) because, in any case the said provision (Section 135) had been included in the Act only by way of clarification and abundant caution. 42. In the alternative if we are to presume that the ingredients of Section 6H are not satisfied then also there is no adjudicated claim but only a highly disputed claim of the workman. In this connection, one can refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. The Workmen and Anr. (supra) wherein this Court opined that: 11. The only question which arises for determination in this Court is whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issues referred to it under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings. But that is not the case with the determinations under heads (i) and (ii). They are normally regarded as the functions of a suit and not an execution proceeding. Since a proceeding under Section 33C(2) is in the nature of an execution proceeding it should follow that an investigation of the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) above is, normally, outside its scope. It is true that in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) , as in an execution proceeding, it may be necessary to determine the identity of the person by whom or against whom the claim is made if there is a challenge on that score. But that is merely 'Incidental'. To call determinations (i) and (ii) 'Incidental' to an execution proceeding would be a perversion, because execution proceedings in which the extent of liability is worked out are just consequential upon the determinations (i) and (ii) and represent the last stage in a process leading to final relief. Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself the functions--say of an Industrial Tribunal which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability to them. Both the latter had been declared and provided for in the Award and the Labour Court did not have to investigate the same. Essentially, therefore, the assay of the Labour Court was in the nature of a function of a court in execution proceedings and hence it was held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to determine, by an incidental enquiry, whether the 4 clerks came in the category which was entitled to the special allowance. 15. It is, however, interesting to note that in the same case the court at page 156 gave illustrations as to what kinds of claim of a workman would fall outside the scope of Section 33C(2) . It was pointed out that a workman who is dismissed by his employer would not be entitled to seek relief under Section 33C(2) by merely alleging that, his dismissal being wrongful, benefit should be computed on the basis that he had continued in service. It was observed His... dismissal may give rise to an industrial dispute which may be appropriately tried, but once it is shown that the employer has dismissed... him, a claim that the dismissal... is unlawful and, therefore, the employee continues to be the Workman of the employer and is entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right to be re-employed. In actual fact, however, the Corporation did not employ these workmen after the Company's undertaking was transferred to it. The scheme of transfer did not compel the Corporation to employ the workmen. Nor is there any term in the transfer agreement or scheme which passed over to the Corporation any responsibility in respect of the workmen. Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act declares what are the rights of the workmen of an undertaking which is transferred. The right is to receive compensation as if the workmen are retrenched under Section 25F and is available only against the owners of the undertaking, that is to say, the transferor of the undertaking. The liability of the transferor to pay compensation does not arise only when (i) there has been a change of employers by reason of the transfer and (ii) the 3 Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso of that section come into play. It is pointed out in South Arcot Electricity Distribution Co. v. N.K. Mohd. Khan that each one of the 3 conditions in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) is to be satisfied before it can be held that the right conferred by the principal clause does not accrue to the workme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The first point raised on behalf of the appellant thus fails. 44. Also on a perusal of the agreement dated 23.01.2001 between the Chairman of the Bank and the workmen it can be seen that, there was no settlement in the eyes of law and is not valid or enforceable or binding for the reason that: It was not signed by the Secretary (CEO) of the CS under Section 31 (2)(d), CS Act. It was not in accordance even with the requirements of Section 2(t) of ID Act or Rules 9(1) and (2) of the UP ID Rules (e.g. Prescribed Form I, signature of Conciliation Officer, signature of authorized principal officer viz. Secretary of the society/Bank, copy to C.O. and/or State government etc.) It was not in accordance with Section 6 B (e.g. lack of registration, lack of scrutiny of collusion, fraud misrepresentation etc. by the Conciliation Officer/State Government.) It is contrary to the repeated orders of the Registrar under Section 128 disapproving and disallowing ex-gratia payment and in breach of the provisions of UPCS Employees Service Regulation, 1975 framed under Sections 121-122 of the UPCS Act, in particular, Regulation 42. 45. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordance with the rules made under the Act, the said rules cannot displace the competent authority or entrust the powers and functions of the competent authority to any other authority. It is true that Section 20(1) of the Act states that no private educational institution shall be established except in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. However, the rules made under the Act can only appoint an authority to accept the application for establishment of the educational institution and to grant permission therefore. But while granting permission, the prescribed authority has, among other things, to take into consideration under Section 20(3)(b) as stated above, the requirement of adequate financial provision for continued and efficient maintenance of the institution as prescribed by the competent authority. The power granted to the State Government under Clauses (xi) and (xii) of Section 99 to make rules with regard to the establishment or maintenance and administration of educational institutions and the grant of recognition to educational institutions and the conditions therefore cannot again be utilised for displacing the competent authority and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and was, therefore, entitled to our acceptance. The basis for the first part of the submission was the statement in the preface to the Exchange Control Manual to the effect: The present edition of the Manual incorporates all the directions of a standing nature issued to authorised dealers in the form of circulars upto 31st May, 1978. The directions have been issued under Section 73(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act which empowers the Reserve Bank of India to issue directions necessary or expedient for the administration of exchange control. Authorised dealers should hereafter be guided by the provisions contained in this Manual. There is no force whatever in this part of the submission. A perusal of the Manual shows that it is a sort of guide book for authorised dealers, money changers etc. and is a compendium or collection of various statutory directions, administrative instructions, advisory opinions, comments, notes, explanations suggestions, etc. For example, paragraph 24-A.l is styled as Introduction to Foreign Investment in India. There is nothing in the whole of the paragraph which even remotely is suggestive of a direction under Section 73(3). Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any prior or previous permission, nor are we able to understand how a power possessed by the Reserve Bank under a Parliamentary legislation can be so cut down as to prevent its exercise altogether. It may be open to a subordinate legislating body to make appropriate rules and regulations to regulate the exercise of a power which the Parliament has vested in it, so as to carry out the purposes of the legislation, but it cannot divest itself of the power. We are, therefore, unable to appreciate how the Reserve Bank, if it has the power under the FERA to grant ex-post-facto permission, can divest itself of that power under the scheme* The argument was advanced with particular reference to the forms prescribed under the scheme. We have already pointed out that the forms under the scheme cannot abridge the legislation itself. In any case, the Secretary as well as the Registrar fully complied with the procedure under Section 128 and Rule 130 on facts and the High Court has evidently misread the records. Ex-gratia payment 48. In the instant case, the Additional Labour Commissioner allowed the payment as an ex-gratia payment to the employees of the Cooperative Bank fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975 (Service Regulations, 1975) framed by the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board. The emoluments and other kinds of allowances payable to the employees of the Bank are also governed by the provisions contained in the Service Regulations, 1975. In the instant case, it is relevant to mention that no agreement or settlement between the bank and its employees have above been arrived at before the Conciliation Officer nor any money is due to the employees under the provisions of Section 6-J(2) of the U.P. Act, 1947 or under any settlement or any award given under the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the application under Section 6-H(1) is an illegal settlement arrived at between the Chairman and the Employees' Association viz. Respondent No. 3 and 4. Regulation 42 50. It is relevant to mention here that the Regulation 42 of the Regulations, 1975, which is relevant for the purposes of the controversy involved in the present case is as under: 42. Other Allowances (i) A cooperative society may, subject to the provisions of these regulations and general or special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority unilaterally entered into a private settlement with the employees of the bank on 23.1.2001. It is relevant to mention here that to avoid such a situation of illegal agreements by the Chairman who is an elected representative and to protect misuse of public fund by the employees amongst themselves, the cooperative Act Rules and Regulations framed thereunder requires prior permission of the Registrar Co-operative Societies for grant of any pecuniary benefits because Regulation 42 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975 provides that any allowance or pecuniary benefits to employees shall be given only by the special order of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, U.P. which order was missing throughout. 54. The present dispute does not relate to said Act, 1947 but it is related to the provisions contained under the Societies Act, 1965 as well as where a circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and more specifically Regulation 42 of Service Rules, 1975. Therefore, in our opinion, the private settlement made on 21.03.2001 does not fall under 6-H(1) of the U.P. Act, 1947. In other words, the payment of ex-gratia is an incentive for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Moreover, the provisions under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is elaborate in this regard, which provides complete machinery that if there is any dispute between the employers and the employees of the Cooperative Society, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitrator as provided under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act are pari materia and this Court in the matter of R.C. Tewari v. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (1997)IILLJ236SC held that Labour Court and Industrial Laws are not applicable where complete machinery has been provided under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act and in such view of the matter the Ld. Additional Labour Commissioner U.P. has no jurisdiction to pass orders in the nature it has been passed. 56. The relevant legal provisions requiring consideration of this Court are quoted below: Section 70. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 70, the Registrar may, subject to the provisions of the rules, if any- (a) decide the dispute himself, or (b) refer it for decision to an arbitrator appointed by him, or (c) refer it, if the parties so request in writing, for decision to a board of arbitrators consisting of the three persons to be appointed in the prescribed manner. (2) The Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded, withdraw any reference made under Clause (b) or (c) of Sub-section (1) and refer it to another arbitrator or board of arbitrators or decide it himself. (3) The Registrar, the arbitrator or the board of arbitrators, to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this section may, pending the decision of the dispute make such interlocutory orders including attachment of property as he or they may deem necessary in the interest of justice. (4) The decision given by the Registrar, the arbitrator or the board of arbitrators under this section shall hereinafter be termed as award. (5) The procedure to be followed by the Registrar, the arbitrator or the board of arbitrators in deciding a dispute and making an award under this section shall be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
