http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: R.C. TIWARI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETINGFEDERATION LTD. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      The  only   question  in  this  case  is:  whether  the reference under  Section 10(1)  of the  Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947  (for short, the "Act") is maintainable in view of the provisions  contained in the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960  (for short, the ’Societies Act’)? Admittedly, the petitioner was  dismissed from  service for  his misconduct. Thereafter, he  sought a  reference under  the Societies Act which was  confirmed and  became final.  On a reference made under the  Act, the Labour Court in case No. 45/85 held that domestic enquiry  was vitiated by illegality and accordingly it set  aside the  order of  dismissal. In Writ Petition No. 2077/92 by  judgment dated  July 8, 1996, the High Court has held that  in view of the provisions contained in Section 55 of the  Societies Act,  the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and, therefore,  the reference  is bad. It is also held that since the  finding was  recorded by the Depty Registrar, Co- op. Societies  against  the  petitioner  in  the  award,  it operates as  res judicate.  The question is whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law. Section 55 of the Societies Act postulates thus:      "55. Registrar’s power to determine      conditions   of    employment    in      societies. - (1) The Registrar may,      from  time   to  time  frame  rules      governing the  terms and conditions      of employment in a society or class      of societies  and  the  society  or      class of  societies to  which  such      terms and  conditions of employment      are applicable  shall  comply  with      the order that may be issued by the      Registrar in this behalf.      (2) Where  a  dispute  including  a      dispute    regarding    terms    of      employment working  conditions  and      disciplinary  action   taken  by  a      society, arises  between a society,      arises between  a society  and  its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    employees,  the  Registrar  or  any      officer appointed  by him not below      the  rank  of  Assistant  Registrar      shall decide  the dispute  and  his      decision shall  be binding  on  the      society and its employees.      Provided that  the Registrar or the      officer referred to above shall not      entertain   the    dispute   unless      presented to him within thirty days      from the  date of  the order sought      to be impugned.      Provided further  that in computing      the period  of limitation under the      foregoing    proviso    the    time      requisite for obtaining copy of the      order shall be excluded."      Learned counsel  for  the  petitioner  seeks  to  place reliance on  Section 64  of the  Act dealing  with  disputes referable to  the arbitration  and contends that the dispute of dismissal  from service  of the  employee of  the society being not  one of  the disputes referable to the arbitration under the  Societies Act,  the award of the Dy. Registrar is without jurisdiction.  He relied  on the  decision  of  this Court in  Co-operative Central  Bank Ltd.  & Ors.  etc. [AIR 1970 SC  245]. He  also places reliance on Section 93 of the Societies Act  which states  that noting  contained  in  the Madhya Pradesh  Shops and  Establishments Act 1958, the M.P. Industrial Workmen  (Standing Orders) Act, 1959 and the M.P. Industrial Relations  Act, 1960  shall apply  to  a  Society registered  under   this  Act.   By  necessary  implication, application of  the Act  has not  been  excluded  and  that, therefore, the  Labour Court has  jurisdiction to decide the matter. We  find no  force in  the contention. Section 55 of the Societies  Act gives power to the Registrar to deal with disciplinary  matters  relating  to  the  employees  in  the Society or  a class  of Societies  including the  terms  and conditions of  employment of  the employees. Where a dispute relates to  the terms  of  employment,  working  conditions, disciplinary action  taken by a Society, or arises between a Society and  its employees,  the Registrar  or  any  officer appointed by him, not below the rank of Assistant Registrar, shall decide  the  dispute and his decision shall be binding on the  society and  its employees.  As regards  power under Section   64,    the   language    is   very   wide,   viz., "Notwithstanding anything  contained in any other law of the time being in force any dispute touching the constitution, a management or  business of a Society or the liquidation of a Society shall  be referred  to the  Registry by  any of  the parties to  the dispute." Therefore, the dispute relating to the  management   or  business   of  the   Society  is  very comprehensive  as  repeatedly  held  by  this  Court.  As  a consequence, special  procedure has been provided under this Act,  Necessarily,   reference  under   section  10  of  the Societies Act  stands excluded.  The judgment  of this Court arising under  Andhra Pradesh  Act has no application to the facts for the reason that under that Act the dispute did not cover the dismissal of the servants of the society which the Act therein was amended.      Admittedly, there  is a  finding recorded  by  the  Dy. Registrar upholding  the misconduct  of the petitioner. That constitutes res  judicata. No doubt, section 11 CPC does not in terms  apply because  it is  not a Court, but a Tribunal, constituted  under   the  Societies  Act  is  given  special jurisdiction. So, the principle laid down thereunder mutatis

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

mutandis squarely  applies to  the procedure  provided under the Act. It operates as res judicate. thus, we find that the High Court  is well  justified in  holding that  the  Labour Court has  no jurisdiction  to decide  the dispute once over and the reference itself is bad in law.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.