# Adhyaksh Prabandh Samiti, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 252
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-12-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4351 of 1994
- **Bench:** B.K. Narayana
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/adhyaksh-prabandh-samiti-dugdh-utpadak-sahkari-samiti-ltd-v-presiding-officer-41573
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act-1947-Award
in favour of workman-of Cooperative
Societies-challenged
on
question
of
jurisdiction-held-considering ratio of Zila
Sahkari
Bank
Case-provision
of
Industrial dispute Act not applicable-to
those employees governed by Societies
Act.

Held: Para 7

For the aforesaid reason, I have no
hesitation in holding that the ratio of the
case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd
(Supra)
applies
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case with full force,
and I have no hesitation in holding that
the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act are not applicable to the employees
of Co-operative Societies Act who are
governed by the provisions of U.P. Cooperative
Societies
Act,

## Text

252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

petitioner and, as such, in view of the fact
that the petitioner had continued for more
than 33 years of service, I see no
justification in passing of the order when
it is admitted that the petitioner has
passed his Intermediate Examination
subsequently.

13. It is also to be noticed that there
was a distinction made in the case of
Mohd. Sartaj (supra) wherein paragraph
19 recites that the order of cancellation
therein was passed within a very short
span of time. The aforesaid aspect,
therefore, weighed heavily with the
Supreme Court while deciding the case of
Mohd. Sartaj. In the instant case, the order
has been passed after more than 33 years
of service and, therefore, the question of
proximity of time has also to be taken
notice of which has weighed with me
while allowing this petition. Apart from
this, there is no fraud or misrepresentation
on the part of the petitioner and he had
categorically disclosed his qualification
only as High School and not as
Intermediate. The impression given by the
complainant that the petitioner had
obtained employment through a forged
mark-sheet was not found to be correct. It
appears that then authority proceeded to
make the appointment on the basis of a
bona fide belief of the existence of the
Rules before its amendment which
contained the qualification of High
School.

14. I, accordingly, set aside the order
dated 10.12.2009 and allow the writ
petition.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.03.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B.K. NARAYANA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4351 of 1994

Adhyaksh
Prabandh
Samiti,
Dugdh
Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding
Officer,
Labour
Court,
Allahabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.D. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajesh Tiwari
C.S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act-1947-Award
in favour of workman-of Cooperative
Societies-challenged
on
question
of
jurisdiction-held-considering ratio of Zila
Sahkari
Bank
Case-provision
of
Industrial dispute Act not applicable-to
those employees governed by Societies
Act.

Held: Para 7

For the aforesaid reason, I have no
hesitation in holding that the ratio of the
case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd
(Supra)
applies
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case with full force,
and I have no hesitation in holding that
the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act are not applicable to the employees
of Co-operative Societies Act who are
governed by the provisions of U.P. Cooperative
Societies
Act,
1965.
The
impugned award dated 14.4.1993 is
therefore, totally without jurisdiction
and is liable to be set aside.
Case law discussed:
JT 2007 (2) SC 566.
1 All] Adhyaksh Prabandh Samiti, Dugdh Utpadak Samiti V. P.O., Labour Court & others

253
(Delivered by Hon'ble B.K. Narayana, J.)

1. List has been revised. Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for respondent
No. 1. None appeared for respondent Nos.
2 to 4.

2.

The
petitioner,
Adyaksh,
Prabandh Samiti Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari
Samiti Limited, District Fatehpur which is
a village level primary mill Co-operative
Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Registration Act, 1965
has filed this writ petition before this
Court assailing the award dated 14.4.1993
published on 15.10.1993 by which the
respondent No. 1 allowed the adjudication
case No. 47 of 1990 setting aside the
termination of service of respondent No. 4
and reinstating him in service with full
back wages.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has raised only one submission before this
Court that the award passed by the
respondent No. 1 is totally without
jurisdiction in view of the fact that
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are
not applicable to the employees of Cooperative Societies registered under Cooperative Societies Registration Act,
1965. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the case of JT 2007 (2) SC 566
(Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. vs.
Additional Labour Commissioner and
others).

4. Learned Standing Counsel
appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted
that the impugned award is based on
relevant consideration and supported by
cogent reasons and does not call for any
interference by this Court. He however,
failed to show whether respondent No. 1
had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute
and to adjudicate upon the same on merits
by passing the impugned award.

5. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record. The
Apex
Court
after
considering
the
provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies
Act and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
in paras 61 and 64 of its judgment in the
case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank
Ltd (Supra) has held as under:

61. "The general legal principle in
interpretation of statutes is that 'the
general Act should lead to the special
Act.' Upon this general principle of law,
the intention of the U.P. legislature is
clear, that the special enactment UP Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 alone
should apply in the matter of employment
of Co-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. & ors v.
The Additional Industrial Tribunal,
Andhra Pradesh & ors (supra) 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
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

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 of the Act, could
not possibly have granted the reliefs
claimed under this issue because of the
limitations placed on his powers in the
Act itself. It is true that Section 61 by
itself
does
not
contain
any
clear
indication that the Registrar cannot
entertain a dispute relating to alteration
of conditions of service of the employees
of a registered society, but the meaning
given to the expression "touching the
business of the society", in our opinion,
makes it very doubtful whether a dispute
in respect of alteration of conditions of
service can be held to be covered by this
expression. Since the word "business" is
equated with the actual trading or
commercial or other similar business
activity of the society, and since it has
been held that it would be difficult to
subscribe to the proposition that whatever
the society does or is necessarily required
to do for the purpose of carrying out its
objects,
such
as
laying
down
the
conditions of service of its employees, can
be said to be a part of its business, it
would appear that a dispute relating to
conditions of service of the workmen
employed by the society cannot be held to
be a dispute touching the business of the
society. Further, the position is clarified
by the provisions of sub-section (4) of
Section 62 of the Act which limit the
power to be exercised by the Registrar,
when dealing with a dispute refereed to
him under section 61, by a mandate that
he shall decide the dispute in accordance
with the provisions of the Act and the
Rules and bye-laws. On the face of it, the
provisions of the Act, the rules and the
bye-laws could not possibly permit the
Registrar to change conditions of service
of the workmen employed by the society.
For the purpose of brining facts to our
notice in the present appeals, the Rules
framed
by
the
Andhra
Pradesh
Government under the Act and the byelaws of one of the appellant Banks have
been placed on the paper books of the
appeals before us. It appears from them
that the conditions of service of the
employees of the Bank have all been laid
down by framing special bye-laws. Most
of the conditions of service, which the
workmen want to be altered to their
benefit, have thus been laid down by the
bye-laws, so that any alteration in those
conditions of service will necessarily
require a change in the bye-laws. Such a
change could not possibly be directed by
the Registrar when, under Section 62(4)
of the Act, he is specifically required to
decide the dispute referred to him in
accordance with the provisions of the byelaws . 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, 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
1 All] Adhyaksh Prabandh Samiti, Dugdh Utpadak Samiti V. P.O., Labour Court & others

255
relief claimed by the workmen at all. On
the principle laid down by this Court in
the case of the Deccan Merchants cooperative 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
not
contemplated to be dealt with under
Section 62 of the Act and must, therefore,
be held to be outside the scope of Section
61.

Further this Court observed in R.C.
Tiwari v. M.P. State Co-operative
Marketing Federation Ltd. & others
(supra), that:-

"He also places reliance on Section 93 of
the Societies Act which states that nothing
contained in the Madhya Pradesh Shops
and Establishments Act, 1958, the M.P.
Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders)
Act, 1950 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 for the time being in force
any dispute touching the constitution, a
management or business of s Society or a
liquidation of a Society shall be referred o
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."

6. Similar view was taken by this
Court in the case of Belsund Sugar Co.
Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & ors (supra),
Allahabad Bank v Canara Bank & Anr
(supra), State of Punjab v. Labour
Court, Jullunder and others (Supra) and
U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv
Mohan Singh & anr (supra).

62............
63............
64. "We, are therefore, of the view that
the Assistant Labour Commissioner's
jurisdiction was wrongly invoked and his
order dated 15.3.2003 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.
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

7. For the aforesaid reason, I have
no hesitation in holding that the ratio of
the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari
Bank Ltd (Supra) applies to the facts and
circumstances of this case with full force,
and I have no hesitation in holding that
the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act are not applicable to the employees of
Co-operative Societies Act who are
governed by the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The
impugned award dated 14.4.1993 is
therefore, totally without jurisdiction and
is liable to be set aside.

8. The writ petition is allowed. The
award
dated
14.4.1993
passed
by
respondent No. 1, Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Allahabad (Annexure 2 to
the writ petition) is set aside.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5004 of 2004

Smt. Rajni Chauhan

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri Pooja Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Principle
of Natural Justice-petitioner 'A' level
government Contractor-licence cancelled
without issuing show cause noticewithout disclosing any material defectheld-cancellation will not effect only
present but debar the petitioner for ever
being registered as 'A' level Government
Contractor
forever
entails
civil
consequences can not be black listed
without attending opportunity- order can
not be black listed without foreign
affording opportunity- order quashed.

Held: Para 10

Here in the present case, undisputedly
no opportunity of hearing was given to
the
petitioner
before
cancelling
his
registration as class 'A' contractor and
passing of an order of blacklisting. We
are therefore of the considered opinion
that before passing the impugned order
the opportunity of hearing must have
been afforded to the petitioner as the
impugned
order
leads
to
civil
consequences as this will not only affect
the
petitioner's
registration
with
respondent no.2 but will affect his future
working with various other government
departments, which of course is the
means of livelihood of the petitioner.
Hence the impugned order cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.
Case law discussed:
A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 266, A.I.R. Suprme
Court 620, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1277,
.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court 3707.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The petitioner is a registered
contractor of category 'A' with the
respondent no.2. She is aggrieved by
order dated 23.1.2004 passed by Regional
Food Controller Agra Division, Agra (the
respondent no.2) by which the petitioner's
registration as Class 'A' contractor has
been cancelled and the petitioner has been
black listed. The impugned order has been
assailed on the ground that the same has
been
passed
without
affording
any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.