# Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bareilly v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 512
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-12
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 5577 of 2015
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kisan-sahkari-chini-mills-ltd-bareilly-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-52390
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

A. Labour law - UP Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 - Sections 3 & 4-K - Standing Orders -
UP Cooperative Society Act, 1965 - S. 70 -
Workmen
of
Cooperative
Society
-
Termination of services - Remedy - Labour
Court, how far have jurisdiction - Held, S.
70 of the Cooperative Act, 1965 excludes
disputes regarding disciplinary action to be
taken against the paid servant. Nonetheless
the workmen are not remediless as once the
service conditions does not fall under the
Cooperative Act, 1965 then in view of the
Standing Orders issued from time to time
the workmen have a remedy to approach
the Labour Courts having jurisdiction over
the matter. (Para 24)

Writ disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,991 of 67,519. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39991 for what follows._

512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
endeavour not only decide the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
first thereafter take up the application for
recall. In case if it finds favour in
condoning the delay and the recall and if
the proceedings are restored thereafter the
proceedings itself may be decided after
affording full opportunity of hearing to the
parties
but
without
granting
any
unnecessary adjournments on merits so that
the proceedings can be culminated in a
final order within a period of six months
from the date, a copy of this order is placed
before the authority concerned.

26. It is made clear that the Court
has only touched the decision making
process upon which the proceedings
have been challenged, however, no
expression of opinion on merits have
been given by the Court on the
respective rights and claims of the
parties which shall be considered by the
court concerned.

27. With the aforesaid, the petition
is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Costs are
made easy.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 512
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ - C No. 5577 of 2015
with other connected cases

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bareilly
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly &
Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vrindavan Mishra, Sri Satyam Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gopal Narayan

A. Labour law - UP Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 - Sections 3 & 4-K - Standing Orders -
UP Cooperative Society Act, 1965 - S. 70 -
Workmen
of
Cooperative
Society
-
Termination of services - Remedy - Labour
Court, how far have jurisdiction - Held, S.
70 of the Cooperative Act, 1965 excludes
disputes regarding disciplinary action to be
taken against the paid servant. Nonetheless
the workmen are not remediless as once the
service conditions does not fall under the
Cooperative Act, 1965 then in view of the
Standing Orders issued from time to time
the workmen have a remedy to approach
the Labour Courts having jurisdiction over
the matter. (Para 24)

Writ disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs
Additional Commissioner; (2007) 11 SCC 756

2. Ram Shankar Vaish Vs Presiding Officer,
Labour Court; 2011 (131) FLR 391

3. Brij Bhushan Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2009(2) ADJ 314

4. Writ C No. 23765 of 2005; Cooperative Cane
Development Union Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
decided on 18.04.2011

5. Writ C No. 11386 of 1993; Farrukhabad
Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Vs Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Lko. & ors. decided on
04.08.2011

6. Writ A 42227 of 1992 Sunder Lal Vs The
L.S.R. Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & ors. decided on
29.11.2011

7. Writ C No. 11395 of 2017; Secretary Sadhan
Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Faizabad & anr. decided on 04.04.2022
8 All. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly &
 Ors.
513
8. Writ C No. 48700 of 2010; Pradeshik
Cooperative Diary Federation Ltd. & anr. Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 23.05.2012

9. Aliganj Kshetriya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Bareilly
Vs Murali Lal Sharma & anr.; 2012 (135) FLR
536

10. Writ C No. 25816 of 1999; Firozabad Dugdh
Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Vs P.O., Labour
Court, Agra & ors. decided on 31.07.2012

11.
Maharashtra
St.
Cooperative
Housing
Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Prabhakar Sitaram
Bhadange; (2017) 5 SCC 623

12. Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Vs M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & ors.; AIR 1969
SC 1320

13. Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & ors. Vs
The Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra
Pradesh & ors.; 1969 (2) SCC 43

14. Gujarat St. Cooperative Land Development
Bank Ltd. Vs P.R. Mankad & ors.; (1979) 3 SCC
123

15. Bhavnagar University Vs Palitana Sugar Mill
(P) Ltd.; (2003) 2 SCC 111

16. Escorts Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central
Excise, Delhi-II; (2004) 8 SCC 335)

17. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & anr. Vs
N.R. Vairamani & anr.; 2004 (8) SCC 579

18. St. of Orissa Vs MD. Illiyas; 2006 (1) SCC
275

19. Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. &
ors. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut &
anr.; 2001 (7) SCC 90

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Noticing divergent views and
finding it difficult to reconcile, the learned
Single Judge vide order dated 03.02.2015
has referred the following questions to be
answered by Larger Bench.-

"Whether workmen of Kisan
Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd. whose services are
governed by the Standing Order Covering
The
Condition
of
Employment
of
Workmen In Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories
In U.P. can raise industrial dispute
involving the provisions of U.P. Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 ?"

Facts

2. Broadly, the facts of the case are
that Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (in
short 'Sugar Mill') is engaged in the
business of manufacturing of sugar by
vacuum pan process and claims to have
obtained a licence under the provisions of
U.P.
Vacuum
Pan
Sugar
Factories
Licensing Order, 1969 (in short 'Licensing
Order 1969').

3. In exercise of the powers conferred
under clause (3) of Article 348 of the
Constitution of India read with clause (b) of
Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (in short 'U.P. I.D. Act, 1947').
The State of Uttar Pradesh framed Standing
Orders
regulating
the
Condition
of
Employment of Workmen in Vacuum Pan
and Sugar Factories of Uttar Pradesh on
27.09.1988. Owing to demand for revision
of the Standing Orders, revised Standing
Orders Governing the Condition of the
Employees and Workmen in Vacuum Pan
Sugar Factories in Uttar Pradesh came to be
framed on 29.04.2022.

4. Dispute with regard to termination
of the employment of the workmen resulted
in reference under Section 4-K of the U.P.
I.D. Act, 1947 which in turn got registered
as adjudication cases. Objections were
preferred by the Sugar Mill taking a ground
that since the Sugar Mills are governed
under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Societies Act, 1965 (in short 'Co-operative
Act, 1965') read with U.P. Cooperative
Societies Employees Service Regulations,
1975
(in
short
'Regulations,
1975'),
therefore, the adjudicating courts under the
U.P. I.D. Act, 1947 had no jurisdiction and
authority to adjudicate the said disputes.
The said objections came to be rejected by
the Labour Courts holding that it had the
competence to adjudicate the said disputes.
Several writ petitions were filed before this
Court, category 'A' against the order
rejecting the objections raised by the Sugar
Mill, category 'B' writ petition filed against
the reference orders and category 'C' writ
petition filed by the Workmen wherein
challenge was raised to the order of the
Labour Court holding that it had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute since
it falls under the provisions of the Cooperative Act, 1965.

5. On 29.08.2022, this Court
appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the
Court.

Arguments of Amicus Curiae

6. Sri Samir Sharma, Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Diptiman Singh, Amicus
Curiae, submitted that the Sugar Mills are
though engaged in manufacture of Sugar
like private sector Sugar Mills but there lies
a slight distinction that in the case of the
petitioner-Sugar Mill the manufacture of
Sugar is by Vacuum Pan Process. For the
said purpose, a statutory licence is to be
obtained under the provisions of Licensing
Order, 1969. It is also submitted that in the
Sugar Mills in question, the works are
being executed by the employees and the
workmen. As regards, the condition of the
services of the workmen in Vacuum Pan
Sugar Factories are concerned they are
governed by the Standing Orders notified
on 27.09.1988 which stood revised on
29.04.2022. With respect to the employees
their service conditions are governed under
U.P.
Cooperative
Sugar
Mills
and
Distilleries Employees Service Regulation,
2015
(in
short
'Regulation,
2015).
According to the Amicus Curiae, since the
Standing Orders issued from time to time
specifically deals with the condition of the
services of the workmen and reference has
been made in the Standing Orders for
adjudication of the dispute relating to
condition of services by the adjudicating
forum under the U.P. I.D. Act, 1947, thus,
the provisions of the Cooperative Act, 1965
and Regulations, 1975 would not apply.
Argument is that the provisions of
Cooperative Act, 1965 and the Regulations,
1975 have no application particularly when
Section 70 of the Cooperative Act, 1965
does not deal with the contingency of
adjudication of the disputes regarding
disciplinary action through arbitration. It is
contended that the judgment in the case of
Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited Vs.
Additional Commissioner (2007) 11 SCC
756 would have no application in the facts
of the case particularly when the dispute in
the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank
Limited (supra) was with regard to grant of
ex gratia to the employees, whereas in the
present case at hand the dispute is of
termination of the engagement/employment
which obviously comes within the realm of
disciplinary action. It is, thus, submitted
that once there happens to be specific
Standing Orders occupying the field then
the provisions of the Cooperative Act, 1965
would not be of any application and it is the
adjudicating authority under U.P. I.D. Act,
1947 which is the only competent forum to
decide such type of disputes.

7. Lastly, it has been argued that the
judgment in the case of Ram Shankar
8 All. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly &
 Ors.
515
Vaish Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court
2011 (131) FLR 391 lays correct law while
holding that the Labour Court has the
absolute and sole jurisdiction to adjudicate
the case.

Arguments of the Counsel for Kisan
Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.

8. Sri Satyam Singh who appears for
the Sugar Mills had sought to argue that in
view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila
Sahkari Bank Limited (supra), it is beyond
shadow of doubt that it is only the
provisions of Cooperative Act, 1965 which
would apply in the disputes in question as
the Cooperative Act, 1965 being a special
enactment would prevail upon the general
enactment and the Labour Court has no
authority under law to adjudicate the said
disputes.

9. Submission is that in view of
Section 135 of the Cooperative Act, 1965,
the provisions of U.P. I.D. Act, 1947 would
not apply to the cooperative societies and
once the Sugar Mills is a cooperative
society then obviously the provisions of
Section 70 of the Cooperative Act, 1965
would apply and the matter being arbitrable
the
Labour
Court
would
have
no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the said disputes.
He seeks to rely upon the judgments in the
case of (i) Brij Bhushan Singh and
another Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2009(2) ADJ 314, decided on 19.12.2008,
(ii) Cooperative Cane Development Union
Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
Writ-C No. 23765 of 2005, decided on
18.04.2011, (iii) Farrukhabad Dugdh
Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Lko. & others,
Writ-C No. 11386 of 1993, decided on
04.08.2011, (iv) Sunder Lal Vs. The L.S.R.
Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Others, Writ-A
42227 of 1992 decided on 29.11.2011, (v)
Secretary Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Faizabad and Another, Writ-C No. 11395
of 2017, decided on 04.04.2022, (vi)
Pradeshik Cooperative Diary Federation
Ltd. & another Vs. State of U.P. & Others,
Writ-C No. 48700 of 2010, decided on
23.05.2012,
(vii)
Aliganj
Kshetriya
Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Bareilly Vs. Murali
Lal Sharma & another, 2012 (135) FLR
536, decided on 23.07.2012, and (viii)
Firozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh
Ltd. Vs. P.O., Labour Court, Agra &
Others, Writ-C No. 25816 of 1999, decided
on 31.07.2012.

Arguments
of
the
counsel
for
Workmen

10. Sri Gopal Narayan, learned
counsel for the workmen has supported the
arguments of Amicus Curiae while adding
that Section 70 of the Cooperative Act,
1965 deals with the disputes which may be
referred to arbitration as envisaged under
clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section
(1) and it is restricted to the disputes
relating to constitution, management or
business of cooperative society which
excludes a dispute regarding disciplinary
action taken against a paid servant.
According to him, the dispute in the case in
hand
is
of
termination
of
the
engagement/services which obviously falls
within the category of disciplinary action as
the termination has been an outcome of
misconduct.

11. Submission is that a workman
cannot be remediless as once Section 70 of
the Cooperative Act, 1965 does not
contemplate any arbitration in the matter of
the dispute regarding disciplinary action
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
taken against a paid servant then the only
recourse available to the workmen is to
approach the competent forum under the
U.P. I.D. Act, 1947 in the wake of the
clauses of the standing orders as applicable
from time to time. It is submitted that the
judgment in the case of Ghaziabad Zila
Sahkari
Bank
Limited
(supra)
is
distinguishable on the facts of the case and
is not applicable as it relates to the dispute
of ex gratia payment which nowhere falls
under the category of dispute relating to
disciplinary action.

Argument Advanced on behalf of
State of Uttar Pradesh

12. Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned
Standing Counsel has also supported the
argument of the learned Amicus Curiae
while contending that the dispute in the
case
in
hand
is
amenable
to
the
adjudicating authority under the U.P. I.D.
Act, 1947. She while relying upon the
judgment in the case of Maharashtra State
Cooperative
Housing
Finance
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram
Bhadange,
(2017) 5
SCC 623 has
contended that the dispute relatable to
constitution, management or the business
of the cooperative society would not take
into its ambit the disputes regarding
disciplinary actions taken against the paid
servants,
specifically
when
the
said
disputes have been ousted from being
referred to arbitration. According to the
learned Standing Counsel, the judgment in
the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank
Limited (supra) is distinguishable in the
facts of the case.

13. Before we proceed to answer
the questions framed by the learned Single
Judge, it would be apposite to have a quick
survey of the statutory provisions.-
Statutory Provisions
U.P. Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories
Licensing Order, 1969

2. "Definitions.- In this order
unless the context otherwise requires:

(a)"Producer of Sugar" means a
person carrying on the business of
manufacturing sugar by vacuum pan
process and at its own option, ethanol
either directly from sugarcane juice or from
molasses, including B-Heavy molasses, or
both."

3. "Grant of Licence.- (1) No
sugar
shall
be
manufactured
from
sugarcane by a producer of sugar by
vacuum pan process unless he has obtained
from the State Government a licence
therefor in the form prescribed in Schedule
1.

(2) An application for grant or
renewal of a licence under clause (i) shall
be submitted to the Sugar Commissioner by
the date prescribed in Schedule II in the
form prescribed in Schedule III and
accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the
fee prescribed in Schedule IV:

Provided
that
the
State
Government may renew the licence for
which an application for renewal is
received after the expiry of the prescribed
date for receipt of such an application, if
State Government is satisfied that there was
reasonable cause for the delay."
Standing Orders

Standing
Orders
dated 27.09.1988
Standing
Orders
dated 29.04.2022
Now, therefore, in
exercise
of
the
powers under clause
(b) of section 3 of
the U. P. Industrial
disputes Act, 1947
(U. P. Act no. 28 of
1947)
and
Now, therefore, in
exercise
of
the
powers under clause
(b) of Section 3 of
the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947
(U.P. Act 28 of
1947)
and
in
8 All. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly &
 Ors.
517
insupersession
of
Government
Notification
no.
5436-ST- XXXVIA-208-ST/58, dated
October 3, 1958, as
amended from time
to
time,
the
Governor is pleased
to order that all
vacuum pan sugar
factories in Uttar
Pradesh
shall
comply
with
the
standing orders as
annexed hereto, and
to
direct
with
reference to section
19 of the said Act
that notice of this
order shall be given
by publication in the
official gazette.

supersession
of
Government
Notification
No.
5692(HI)/XXXVI2-110 (HI)-77, dated
September 27, 1988,
as amended from
time to time, the
Governor is pleased
to order that all
vacuum pan sugar
factories in Uttar
Pradesh
shall
comply
with
the
Standing Orders as
annexed hereto, and
to
direct
with
reference to Section
19 of the said Act
that notice of this
order shall be given
by publication in the
Gazette
2. This order shall
come into force with
immediate
effect
and shall, in respect
of matters covered
by
it,
bind
the
vacuum pan sugar
factories
and
the
workmen employed
there in for a period
of one year in the
first instance.

2. This order shall
come
into
force
from the date of
publication
of
notification
and
shall, in respect of
matters covered by
it, bind the vacuum
pan sugar factories
and the workmen
employed therein up
to
the
date
of
new/next
notification. It shall
be
mentioned
in
appointment
letter
of
every
new
workman that their
services
will
be
governed
by
this
standing order.

3. There shall be no
other
service
conditions
of
workmen
of
all
vacuum pan sugar
factories in addition
to
this
standing
order.

"Workman"
shall
have
the
same
meaning as assigned
to it under the U.P.
Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947/Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
"Workman"
shall
have
the
same
meaning as assigned
to it under the Uttar
Pradesh
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947/Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947
and
according
to
nature
of
work
without
any
consideration
of
wage ceiling limit.

B. Classification of
workmen

1. Workmen shall
be classed as:
(1) Permanent,
(2) Seasonal,
(3) Temporary,
(4) Probationers,
(5) Apprentices, &
(6) Substitutes.
B. Classification of
workmen

1. Workmen shall
be classed as:
(i) Permanent,
(ii) Seasonal,
(iii) Temporary,
(iv) Probationers,
(v) Apprentices, and
(vi) Substitutes.

An
"Apprentice"
means a person as
defined in section
2(a)
of
U.P.
Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.

An
"Apprentice"
means a person as
defined in the Uttar
Pradesh
Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947
and Apprenticeship
Act, 1961.

Termination
Termination
of
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Employment-

1. The employmemt
of
a
workman,
permanent
or
seasonal
may
be
terminated in the
following cases;
(a)
Genuine
retrenchment;
(b)
Infirmity
and
disability:
(c) Misconduct;

Provided that before
terminating
the
services
of
a
seasonal
workman
on grounds (a) and
(b) the management
shall give 15 days'
notice
of
their
intention to do so
during the season. It
shall
not
be
permissible to give
such a notice till 15
days
after
the
commencement
of
the
season
and
during that period
the
workman
concerned
shall
have the right to
represent his case to
the
State
Labour
Commissioner. The
aforesaid
notice
shall then remain in
suspense
pending
final decision in the
matter by the State
Labour
Commissioner, or if
he so directs, by
Employment:

1. The employment
of
a
workman
permanent
or
seasonal
workman
permanent
or
seasonal
may
be
terminated in the
following cases:
(a)
Genuine
retrenchment;
(b)
Infirmity
and
disability;
(c) Misconduct:

Provided that before
terminating
the
service of a seasonal
workman
on
grounds (a) and (b)
the
management
shall
give
fifteen
days' notice of their
intention to do so
during the season. It
shall
not
be
permissible to give
such a notice till
fifteen days after the
commencement
of
the
season
and
during that period
the
workman
concerned
shall
have the right to
represent his case to
the
Labour
Commissioner,
Uttar Pradesh who
shall
decided
the
representation
of
workman
within
thirty days.

Additional. Labour
Commissioner
or
the
Regional
Deputy.
Labour
Commissioner.

Provided also that
the
provision
regarding
retrenchment
on
grounds (a) and (b)
laid down in the
preceding
proviso
shall not apply to
permanent workmen
who
will
be
governed
in
the
matter
of
retrenchment by the
Industrial Disputes
Act,
1947,
as
amended from time
to time.

Note. All vacancies
occurring as a result
of
retrenchment
shall be filled in
accordance with the
provisions of U.P.
Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947/ Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.

The
management
shall be at liberty to
take
decision
if
representation is not
decided
within
thirty days. In case
of termination of
employment due to
infirmity
and
disability. if Labour
commissioner is not
satisfied, shall refer
the
matter
to
Medical
Board,
whose decision shall
be final:

Provided
further
that the provision
regarding
retrenchment
on
grounds (a) and (b)
laid down be the
preceding
proviso
shall not apply to
permanent workmen
who
will
be
governed
in
the
matter
of
retrenchment by the
Industrial Disputes
Act,
1947,
as
amended from time
to time.

Note. All vacancies
occurring as a result
of
retrenchment
shall be filled in
accordance with the
provisions of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947/Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
8 All. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly &
 Ors.
519

4. The reasons for
the termination of
service
shall
be
given
by
the
Manager
in
the
notice referred to in
the first proviso to
clause (1) above.

5. Unless he has
qualified for getting
notice under Sec.6N
of
the
U.P.
Industrial Disputes
Act,
1947
the
employment of a
probationer.
substitute,
temporary
or
apprentice workman
may be terminated
by
the
Manager
without any notice
or any payment in
lieu of notice.

4. The reasons for
the termination of
service
shall
be
given
by
the
Manager
in
the
notice referred to in
the first proviso to
clause (1) above.

5. Unless he has
qualified for getting
notice under Sec.6N
of
the
U.P.
Industrial Disputes
Act,
1947
the
employment of a
probationer.
substitute,
temporary
or
apprentice workman
may be terminated
by
the
Manager
without any notice
or any payment in
lieu of notice.

If the termination of
a workman's service
is the subject matter
of
an
industrial
dispute, he shall be
allowed to live in
the factory quarter
allotted to him till
the dispute is finally
decided,
provided
that
the
worker
continues to utilise
his quarter for his
stay and for his
family members and
does not subject the
same.

If the termination of
a workman's service
is the subject-matter
of
an
industrial
disputes, he shall be
allowed to live in
the factory quarter
with
all
facilities
and
amenities
allotted to him till
the dispute is finally
decided:

Provided that the
worker continues to
utilise his quarter
for his stay and for
his family members
and does not sublet
the same.

The workmen who
are in employment
at
the
time
of
enforcement
of
these
Standing
Orders shall have
the right to get their
age modified as per
clause 3 above with
in
one
year
of
enforcement
of
Standing Orders. He
shall have the right
to represent to the
Regional Addl./Dy.
Labour
Commissioner
of
the area concerned
within one month of
notice of retirement.
Such representations
shall normally be
disposed of within a
period of one month
of the date of receipt
of representation of
the workmen, and
the orders passed by
the
Addl./Deputy
Commissioner
regarding the age of
the
concerned
workman shall be
and shall not be
questioned by any
party
before
any
court.
In
case
Regional
Add/Dy.
Labour
Commissioner
allows
the
representation of the
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employer
shall
modify the record of
age of the workman
immediately
on
receipt of the said
orders.

If
any
question
arises
as
to
the
application
or
interpretation
of
these
Standing
Orders,
any
employer/workmen
may refer it to the
Labour
Commissioner
of
the State and the
Labour
Commissioner shall
after
giving
the
parties
on
opportunity of being
heard, decide the
question.

If
any
question
arises
to
as
the
application
or
interpretation
of
these
Standing
Orders,
any
employer/workmen
may refer it to the
Labour
Commissioner
of
the State and the
Labour
Commissioner shall
after
giving
the
parties
in
opportunity of being
heard, decide the
question
within
ninety days.

W.
Grievance
redressal committee

There shall be a
grievance redressal
committee
comprising of one
member of every
registered
Trade
Unions
and
equivalent
representative
of
management.
The
tenure of committee
shall be three years
and
it
shall
be
reconstituted
after
expiry of the tenure.
If mutual agreement
is not arrived on any
disputed
issue
it
shall be referred to
regional
Additional/Deputy
Labour
Commissioner, who
shall decide after
hearing
the
representative
of
unions
and
management.

Uttar Pradesh Co-operatives
Societies Act, 1965

"Section 1. Short title, extent
and commencement. - (1) This Act may
be called the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative
Societies Act, 1965.
 (2) It extends to the whole of the
State of Uttar Pradesh.

(3) It shall come into force from
such date as the State Government may, by
Notification in the Gazette, appoint in this
behalf.
 Provided that while appointing
such date the State Government may
declare that any provision to be specified in
the declaration shall not come into force
from the date so appointed and in that case
such provisions shall come into force from
such date or dates as the State Government
may similarly appoint in that behalf."

"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 of the business of a cooperative society other than a dispute
regarding disciplinary action taken against
a paid servant of a society arises-
8 All. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly &
 Ors.
521

(a)
among
members,
past
members and persons claiming through
members, past members and deceased
members; or

(b) between a member, past
member or any person claiming through, a
member,
past
member
or
deceased
member, and the society, its committee or
management of any officer, agent or
employee of the society, including any past
officer, agent or employee; or

(c) between the society or its
committee and any past committee, any
officer, agent or employee or any past
officer, past agent or past employee or the
nominee, heir or legal representative of any
deceased
officer,
deceased
agent,
or
deceased employee of the society; or

(d)
between
a
co-operative
society and any other co-operative society
or societies;"

"Section 135. Certain Acts not
apply to co-operative societies. - The
provisions contained in the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947), and
the UP. Industrial Disputes Act (U.P. Act
XVIII of 1947), shall not apply to Cooperative Societies."

The U.P. Co-operative Societies
Employees Service Regulations, 1975

"Section 2 (xi). 'employee' means
a person in whole-time service of a cooperative society, but does not include a
casual worker employed on daily wages or
a person in part-time service of a society;"

"Section 103. The provisions of
these regulations to the extent of their
inconsistency, with any of the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, U.P.
Dookan
Aur
Vanijya
Adhishthan
Adhiniyam,
1962,
Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 and any other
labour laws for the time being in force, if
applicable to any co-operative society or
class of co-operative societies, shall be
deemed to be inoperative."
 U.P. Co-operative Sugar Mills
and
Distilleries
Employees
Service
Regulations, 2015

"No. 02/2016/117/SC/18-2-201677/12 TC. In exercise of the powers under
sub-section 2 section 122 of Uttar Pradesh
Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (U.P. Act
no. XI of 1966), the Governor is pleased to
approve the regulations framed by the
Authority as required under Government
Notification
no.
474/XII-G-1-1987-7-
(13)76 T.C. dated March 31, 1987
regarding recruitment, emoluments terms
and
conditions
of
service
including
disciplinary control of the employees of
Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Sugar Factories
and Distilleries Employees.
 1.
Short
title,
extent
and
commencement.- (1) These Regulation
may be called the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Sugar Mills and Distilleries
Employees Service Regulations, 2015.

(2) They shall apply to the
employees of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative
Sugar Mills and Distilleries"
"(3)
Apprentices
and
Trainees, during the period of
Apprenticeship or training."
U. P. SUGAR WAGE BOARD, 1991

"The Governor is pleased to order
the publication of the following English
translation
of
notification
No.
556(HI)/XXXVI-2-115(HI)-89,
dated
January 31, 1991 for general information:
 No.
556
(HI)/XXXVI-2-115
(HI)-89

Lucknow: Dated January 31,
1991

Whereas by its Resolution No. V23030/1-85-750A, dated July 17, 1985, the
Government of India decided to set up a
third Wage Board for the Sugar Industry to
consider question of further revision of the
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present wage structure in the industry and
also to make incidental recommendations;
 And,
Whereas
the
report
submitted by the said Wage Board was
considered by the Government of India and
by Resolution No. V-24014/21-89-WB,
dated December 29, 1989, it accepted the
recommendations of the said Wage Board
with certain modifications:

And, Whereas the matter of
implementation of the said Resolution of
Government of India was considered at
Tripartite Conference held in this State on
23rd
October,
1989
in
which
the
representatives of the employers namely,
the U. P. Branch of the Indian Sugar Mill
Association. Cooperative Sugar Federation
and U.P. State Sugar Corporation and
representatives
of
various
workers'
associations operating in the sugar Industry
of U. P. were present;

And,
Whereas
by
another
Tripartite
Conference
held
on
26th
September, 1990 some of the unresolved
matters were finally taken up bringing
about unanimous accord between the
employers and the workmen on the
implementation of the recommendations of
the said Wage Board:

And, Whereas in the opinion of
State Government, it is necessary to
implement the recommendations of the said
Wage Board as accepted by Government of
India for the maintenance of public order
and supplies and services essential to the
life of the community and for maintaining
employment;

 Now, Therefore, in exercise of
the powers under sub-clause (b) of Section
3 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(U.P. Act No. XXVIII of 1947), the
Governor is pleased to make the following
Order and to direct with reference to
Section 19 of the said Act that notice of this
Order shall be given by publication in the
official Gazette.

"1. This order shall apply to-
 (i) all the Vacuum Pan Sugar
Factories in this State;

(ii) all employees in the Vacuum
Pan Sugar Industry falling within the
definition of the term "workman" in the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended
up to date."

Analysis:

14. Undisputedly, the sugar mills
have been established under the provisions
of the Cooperative Act, 1965. It is also not
in dispute that the sugar mills are engaged
in manufacturing of sugar through vacuum
pan process and holds licences under the
provisions of Licensing Order, 1969. In
order to regulate the Conditions of the
Employment of Workmen in Vacuum Pan
Sugar Factories of Uttar Pradesh, Standing
Orders have been issued wayback on
27.9.1988 which underwent revision on
29.04.2022. The moot question which has
been referred to us and is to be answered is
whether in the wake of the provisions
contained under Cooperative Act, 1965 and
the Regulations, 1975 framed thereunder,
the provisions of U.P. I.D. Act, 1947 would
apply or not.

15. Evidently, the Cooperative Act,
1965 was enacted in order to consolidate
and amend the law relating to cooperative
societies in Uttar Pradesh and received the
assent of the President on 24.03.1966. As
per Section 135, the provisions contained in
the U.P. I.D. Act, 1947 was made
inapplicable
to
cooperative
societies.
However, on
30.12.1967
though
the
Cooperative Act, 1965 was enforced with
effect from 26.01.1968 except Section 135.
Section 70 of the Cooperative Act, 1965
8 All. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly &
 Ors.
523
deals with settlement of dispute which
contains a non obstante clause providing
that the disputes relating to constitution,
management or business of a cooperative
society other than the dispute regarding
disciplinary actions taken against a paid
servant may be referred to Registrar for
action in accordance with the provisions of
the acts and the rules and no Court shall
have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or
other proceedings in respect of such
dispute. In line with the Cooperative Act,
1965, Regulations 1975 came to be enforced.
Sub-clause (ii) of Regulation 2 defines
employee which means a person in wholetime servant of cooperative society, but does
not include a casual worker employed on
daily wage or a person part time service in
society. Further, Chapter II deals with the
strength of staff recruitment, appointment,
probation, conformation, termination and
retirement. With respect to the conditions of
the employment of workmen in Vacuum Pan
Sugar Factories of the State of Uttar Pradesh,
Standing Orders was issued on 27.09.1988
under Section 3 in exercise of the powers
under clause (b) of Section 3 of U.P. I.D. Act,
1947
which
underwent
revision
on
29.04.2022. Apart from the same, 2015
Regulations came to be framed for regulating
service conditions of the employee in the
U.P.
Cooperative
Sugar
Mills
and
Distilleries. In addition to the same, a
notification was issued constituting U.P.
Sugar Wage board known as U.P. Sugar
Wage Board, 1991 regulating the coverage
and wage structure of workmen in Vacuum
Pan Sugar Factories in the State of Uttar
Pradesh and they were assigned the same
definition which found place in the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 as amended from time to
time.

16. Interestingly, the workmen has
not been defined either in the Regulation,
1975 or in the Regulation, 2015. What has
been referred to and defined is employee.
Conversely, the Standing Order defines
workmen and the word 'workmen' has
been used in various provisions either
dealing with the classification of workmen,
appointment, confirmation, termination etc.
The word employee is not defined. Not
only this in exercise of the powers undersub-section (b) of Section 3 of the U.P. I.D.
Act, 1947, the U.P. Sugar Wage Board,
1991 was constituted wherein its coverage
was made to all the Vacuum Pan Sugar
Industries in the State of Uttar Pradesh and
Employees in the Vacuum Pan Sugar
Industries falling within the definition of
workmen in the U.P. I.D. Act, 1947 as
amended from time to time providing for
wage structure. Bearing in mind the above
noted statutory enactment, the provisions
contained
under
Section
70
of
the
Cooperative Act, 1965 is to be interpreted.

17. To put it otherwise, the only
disputes
relatable
to
constitution,
management or business of a cooperative
societies amongst the members, past
members,
persons
claiming
through
members,
past
members,
deceased
members
and
the
Committee
of
Management or an officer, agent or
employee of the society including past
officer, agent or employee or any officer or
between the society or its committee or any
past committee, any officer, agent or
employee or any past officer etc., are only
liable to be referred for settlement of
dispute to arbitration.

18. In the case of R.C. Tiwari
(supra) the appellant therein was dismissed
from service for a proven misconduct,
dispute was referred to the Registrar under
the provisions of Section 55 of the M.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 wherein
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the dismissal was found to be valid and
thereafter matter was referred to the Labour
Court in view of the provisions contained
under U.P. I.D. Act, 1947 which was held
to be not maintainable. While interpreting
the provisions of Section 55 of the M.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Apex
Court held that the powers conferred under
Section 55 to the Registrar was inclusive of
determination of condition of employment
in societies as the words "terms and
conditions of employment" was employed
in the said context.

19. The judgment in the case of R.C.
Tiwari (supra) came to be relied upon and
followed in the case of Ghaziabad Zila
Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra). In the said case,
the dispute was of ex gratia payment to the
employees while taking note of Section 70
of the Cooperative Act, 1965, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court came to the conclusion that
the dispute of ex gratia payment was
amenable to the adjudicating authority
under the Cooperative Act, 1965 and not
under the U.P. I.D. Act, 1947 as there was
no restraint or bar in adjudication of the
said dispute. The judgment in the case of
Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. came to
be followed in the decisions of this Court in
(i) Brij Bhushan Singh and another
(supra),
(ii)
Cooperative
Cane
Development Union Limited (supra), (iii)
Farrukhabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari
Sangh Ltd. (supra), (iv) Sunder Lal
(supra), (v) Secretary Sadhan Sahakari
Samiti
Ltd.
(supra),
(vi)
Pradeshik
Cooperative Diary Federation Ltd. &
another (supra), (vii) Aliganj Kshetriya
Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Bareilly (supra) and
(viii) Firozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari
Sangh Ltd. (supra).

20. The word 'business' employed in
Section
91(1)
of
the
Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 was
interpreted by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank
Ltd. Vs. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain and
Others, AIR 1969 SC 1320 Section 91(1)
of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Act reads as under.-

"91.
(1)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, any dispute touching
the constitution, elections of the office
bearers, conduct of general meetings,
management or business of a society shall
be referred by any of the parties to the
dispute, or by a federal society to which the
society is affiliated, or by a creditor of the
society, to the Registrar, if both the parties
thereto are one or other of the following:

(a) a Society, its committee, any
past committee, any past or present officer,
any past or present agent, any past or
present servant or nominee, heir or legal
representative or any deceased officer,
deceased agent or deceased servant of the
society, or the liquidator of the society;

(b) a member, past member or a
person claiming through a member, past
member or a deceased member of a society,
or a society which is a member of the
society;

(c) a person, other than a member
of the society, who has been granted a loan
by the society, or with whom the society
has or had transactions under the provisions
of Section 45, and any person claiming
through such a person;

(d) a surety of a member, past
member or a deceased member, or a person
other than a member who has been granted
a loan by the society under Section 45,
whether such a surety is or is not a member
of the society;

(e) any other society, or the
Liquidator of such a society.
8 All. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly &
 Ors.
525

It was held as under.-
 "16. The principal questions
which arise on the interpretation of Section
91 are two: (1) what is the meaning of the
expression "touching the business of the
society?" and (2) what is the meaning of
the expression "a person claiming through a
member" which occurs in Section 91 (1)
(b)?

17.