9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s enunciated in the Division Bench judgment reported in W.P.No. 14792 - 804/1998 c/w 14095/1998 dated 9.3.2000 ( Veerashaiva Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others) on the ground that amendment brought to Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act ousts the jurisdiction of Labour Court by conferring the jurisdiction on the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. This Reference was placed before us on 9.4.2003 as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 1.4.2003. 2. Brief facts leading to the Order of Reference, as alleged, are: The Karnataka Sugar Workers Federation (R) represented by its President has filed W.P.No. 36625/2000 challenging the validity of amendments made to the Co-operative Societies Act by the Karnataka Co-operative 2nd Amendment Act, 1997 as published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 27.3.2000, in so far as it relates to amendment made to Section 70(1)(d) and Section 70(2)(d) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('KCS Act' for short). It is alleged that the petitioner is a Federation of Trade Union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 functioning in Sugar Factories. The petitioner Federation r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of an employee of a Co-operative Society to which the KCS Act is applicable, is a dispute that can be sought to be adjudicated upon by a labour forum under the provisions of the ID Act is of such importance with any decision thereon having wide impact ? The Division Bench while considering the various case laws held that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is excluded. These petitions are filed challenging the subsequent amendments brought in the KCS Act and for re-consideration of the decision in Veerashaiva Co-operative Bank's case. 6. The State has filed statement of objections defending the amendment introduced to the KCS Act. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge has to follow the Division Bench order and more so the decision in Agra Dist. Co.op. Bank Ltd. v. Prescribed Authority, Supreme Court MANU/SC/0956/2001 is not applicable. Therefore, this Reference is incompetent. 7. The main contention of the petitioners is that the ID Act is a pre-constitutional legislation and by virtue of Article 372 read with Article 254 and item 22 of List III of VII Schedule to the Constitution, the Parliament has the power to pass the law on industrial disputes and the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a co-operative society. 12. Section 70 of the Act starts with a non-obstinate clause that notwithstanding anything contained in any law, for the time being in force . A bare reading of Clause (d) of Sub-section 2 of Section 70 reveals that any dispute between a Co-operative Society and its employees including a dispute pertaining to terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a Co-operative Society against its employees, can be effectively adjudicated upon by the Registrar by following the procedure provided under Section 71 of the Act which provides for the manner in which such disputes are to be disposed of. Admittedly, there are two distinct Acts i.e., the ID Act and the KCS Act. 13. It is settled that provision of one Act cannot be a ground to declare the other Act as ultra vires for not having that provision in that Act. It is also settled proposition of law that if two interpretations are possible, incongruity has to be avoided. If the language is clear, the same should be read. One cannot add or subtract to frustrate the purpose and object of amendment. It is settled that presumption is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was published in the gazette on 27.3.2000 and amended provision has come into effect from 20.6.2000. 16. So far as the argument regarding legislative competence is concerned, as stated, the State is also given the power to legislate along with the Parliament in respect of matter pertaining to industrial disputes under Item 22 to VII Schedule as occurring in concurrent list. It is also equally well known that where the legislative competence of a legislature to enact a law is impugned, the law can be justified as falling within one or more entries of the relevant legislative lists, so also parts of it may be justified falling under one Entry and parts under another. A reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Narotham Das AIR 1959 SC 69 and State of Bombay v. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318. Therefore, it is futile to contend that the State has no legislative competence to amend Section 70(2)(d) of the KCS Act by ousting the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as it can do so in exercise of powers under both Entries referred to above. Under the circumstances, the amendment cannot be said to have no competence. 17. So far as the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute notwithstanding that no other workman or union of workmen is a party to the dispute. At the same time, it is also seen that the workman cannot make a dispute of a general nature. In other words, the dispute pertaining to charter of general demands can be espoused collectively by the union only and not by an individual. Therefore, the argument that the union is deprived of the opportunity to raise a dispute is in no way attracted and on that basis, the amendment cannot be quashed. That apart, nothing can be added to the clear intention of the amendment and on this ground also the amendment cannot be held to be invalid. No doubt, the term 'ultra vires' means beyond the power or legal authority . In the instant case, as discussed, it was within the competence of the State to make an amendment. The amendment so made received assent of the President of India. The argument of Mr. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel that even if the assent has been given by the President on the State Act, the same is not binding, cannot be accepted, in view of the above discussion. More so, no material has been placed to substantiate the argument. Therefore, the said amendment cannot be held to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aleshappa v. State of Karnataka and Ors. ILR 2002 KAR 4306 decided on 23.8.2002 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik AIR 2002 SC 296. However, this controversy is involved in number of cases which are tagged to this case and the matter is of great importance. Heard the matter at length. As agreed by the parties this Full Bench considers the issue and decides the reference upholding the validity of the amendment and in view of this it is not required to reconsider the view taken by Division Bench in Veerashaiva Co-operative Bank's case (supra). 22. Now we take up the cases cited before us. 23. It is pertinent to note that the effect of the provisions of Section 70(2)(d) of the KCS Act regarding ouster of jurisdiction came up for consideration before this Court in Harugeri Urban Cooperative Bank v. State of Karnataka 1981 (1) Kar.L.J. 136 and Government Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Marthanda Bhima Hangal ILR 1976 KAR 111. This Court held that after the amended provisions of the Societies Act came into force, both the Registrar of Societies and the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, under the Industrial Disputes Act had con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourts and Industrial Tribunals. On the fact of that case, the Apex Court found that the dispute that was referred to Industrial Tribunal did not fall within the ambit of Section 61 and held that Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. On the same ground the decision in Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited v. P.R. Mankad and Anr., [1979] 2 SCR 1023 is also not helpful to the petitioner. Similarly the decision of the Supreme Court in Agra Co-operative Societies Act v. Prescribed Authority decided on 27.2.2001, is also not helpful as in that case having regard to the provisions of Section 70 of the UP Co-operative Employees Service Regulation and having regard to the earlier decision of the Co-operative Central Bank Limited v. Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh referred to above and the fact that the question of maintainability of the dispute between the Labour Court had not been raised at the earlier point of time though Writ Petitions had been filed before the High Court when the matter was pending before the Labour Court and having regard to the contents of the provisions of Section 70 of the UP Co-operative Societies Act as it then ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Once the validity of the amendment is upheld as discussed, and when the law expressly bars the jurisdiction of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals to decide the disputes arising under Section 70, the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court would stand vindicated. 29. A reference can be made of the decision in Sagarmal v. Distt. Sahkari Kendriya Bank decided on 1.10.1996 wherein removal of an employee by the co-operative bank was challenged and the High Court held that the reference under Section 10(1)(d) of such removal was incompetent and the award made therein was a nullity and distinguished the Full Bench decision in Rashtriya Khadan Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti Limited v. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court 1975 MPLJ 583. Their Lordships observed that the only question before the High Court was the competence of a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, and not the availability of the remedy under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act or the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act. The view taken by the High Court was that the reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, was incompetent and, therefore, the aw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
