# Sec. Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Ors v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Faizabad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 838
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-04
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 11395 of 2017
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sec-sadhan-sahkari-samiti-ltd-ors-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-faizabad-anr-44323
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, - Payment of Wages Act, - U.P.
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Sections 2 (K)
& 33(C)(2), - U.P. Cooperative Societies Act
- Section 70 - Petitioner filed application
before the prescribed Authority under
payment of wages Act - for payment of
difference of wages - Award was passed &
get finality when awarded amount was paid
- respondent preferred an application before
the Labour Court as Industrial Dispute -
impugned order was passed - it is a settled
law that in case of a dispute between the
cooperative societies and its members,
Labour court would not have its jurisdiction
- impugned order suffers with lack of
jurisdiction - writ petition allowed -
impugned order set aside.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)04ILR A838
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCNOW 04.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 11395 of 2017

Sec. Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court, Faizabad &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Saryu Prasad Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shobh Nath Pandey

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, - Payment of Wages Act, - U.P.
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Sections 2 (K)
& 33(C)(2), - U.P. Cooperative Societies Act
- Section 70 - Petitioner filed application
before the prescribed Authority under
payment of wages Act - for payment of
difference of wages - Award was passed &
get finality when awarded amount was paid
- respondent preferred an application before
the Labour Court as Industrial Dispute -
impugned order was passed - it is a settled
law that in case of a dispute between the
cooperative societies and its members,
Labour court would not have its jurisdiction
- impugned order suffers with lack of
jurisdiction - writ petition allowed -
impugned order set aside.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Additional
Labour Commissioner & ors.(2007 Vol. 11 SCC
756),

2. Prabhu Dayal Vs Sahkari Samiti Mujuri Vikas
Khand & ors.(2008 Vol. 4 SCC 34),
3. K. A. Annamma Vs Secretary, Cochin
cooperative Hospital Society Ltd. (2018 Vol. 2
SCC 729),

4. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Vs A. Rajappa & ors.(AIR 1978 SC 548) ,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, the
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 17.04.2017
passed by the labour court in exercise of
the powers under section 33(C)(2) of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the
respondent
claiming
himself
to
be
employed with the petitioner filed an
application under the Payment of Wages
Act alleging that the wages paid to the
petitioner were less than the wages to
which the petitioner was entitled and by
means of the order dated 29.03.2004, the
authority under the payment of wages act
determined that the petitioner was paid
wages less by Rs.1077/- and accepted the
contention of the respondent for payment
of difference of payment of wages for the
period December 2001 to April 2002 and
thus passed an award directing the
petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.21,740/-.
The said award was never challenged and
the admitted position as of now is that the
petitioner has been paid the amount as
awarded by the prescribed authority under
the Payment of Wages Act. After the said
award,
the
respondent
preferred
an
application under section 33(C)(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act claiming that once
the wages were determined by means of the
order dated 29.03.2004, for the subsequent
4 All. Sec. Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Faizabad &
 Anr.
839
period also, the respondent has not been
paid wages of which he was entitled. Based
upon the said application, an order was
passed holding that the respondent was
entitled to difference of payment of wages
for the period December 2001 up to June
2006 (fifty five months) and the same were
quantified and awarded at Rs.59,235/- with
a further penalty of Rs.59,235/- was also
imposed and the petitioners were directed
to pay a total amount of Rs.1,18,470/- to
the respondent. The said order is under
challenge in the present proceedings.

4. The counsel for the petitioner
argues that the order passed in exercise of
powers under section 33(C)(2) of the Act is
bad in law inasmuch as the award in favour
of the respondent dated 29.03.2004 had
quantified
the
dues
payable
to
the
respondent at Rs.21,740/-, the authority
under section 33(C)(2) could not have
determined the amount allegedly due by the
respondent for the period other than
claimed leading to passing of the award
dated 29.03.2004. It is further argues that
the respondent had drawn the bills for
payment of his dues and after he was
terminated, the respondent preferred the
application.
In
fact
the
respondent
challenged the termination order by filing a
writ petition before this court, which was
dismissed directing the respondent to prefer
a claim under section 70 of the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act. It is stated that
the respondent did not file any proceedings
under section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies
Act
and
instead
filed
an
application under section 33 (C) (2) of the
Act, which has been allowed. He further
argues that although the authority under the
Payment of Wages Act, had the power to
pass an award, however, the labour court
does not have any jurisdiction to entertain
any dispute in between the Cooperative
Society and its Members except by way of
invoking the procedure as prescribed under
Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
places reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad
Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. vs. Additional
Labour Commissioner and others; 2007
(11) SCC 756 as well as the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu
Dayal vs. Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Mujuri
Vikas Khand, Paniyara and others; 2008
(4) SCC 34. In the light of the said
judgments, he argues that the labour court
did not have the jurisdiction, as such, the
order deserves to be set aside.

6. The counsel for the respondent, on
the other hand, tries to justify the order by
arguing that once the prescribed authority
under the Payment of Wages Act had
quantified the salary payable to the
respondent, only for the purposes of
computing the benefits, the relief as availed
by the respondent was available under
section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act. He further argues that the question of
labour court having jurisdiction was
considered by the Supreme Court in the
case of K.A. Annamma vs. Secretary,
Cochin Cooperative Hospital Society
Limited; 2018 (2) SCC 729. He also
places reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore
Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs.
A. Rajappa and others; AIR 1978
Supreme Court 548. In the light of the
above two judgments, the counsel for the
respondent argues that the petition is liable
to be dismissed as the respondent was
vigilant over his rights to approach the
labour court for payment of his dues. He
also argues that after the judgment of the
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore
Water Supply (supra), a Cooperative
Society
would
also
fall
within
the
definition of the 'industry'.

7. The counsel for the petitioner
argues that the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of K.A. Annamma
(supra) does not take into consideration the
earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in
the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank
Ltd. (supra) and Prabhu Dayal (supra)
and the same being rendered in the facts
arising out of the Kerala Cooperative
Society Act would not be applicable to the
present case.

8. In the light of the arguments raised
at the bar, this court is to decide whether
the labour court was justified in exercise of
the powers under section 33(C)(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act to have passed the
order as has been done by means of the
present order, impugned in the present writ
petition.

9. What emerges from the pleadings
is that by means of an award dated
29.03.2014, the prescribed authority under
the Payment of Wages Act had quantified
the payments to the respondent for the
period December 2001 to April 2002 at
Rs.21,740/-. No other proceedings were
ever initiated under the Payment of Wages
Act by the respondent. The respondent
approached the labour court by filing an
application under section 33(C)(2) and on
which the labour court assessed the amount
payable for the period 2001 up to 2006.

10. The first argument as to whether
the labour court has jurisdiction for passing
the order has been squarely concluded by
the Supreme Court in the case of
Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.
(supra) followed by Prabhu Dayal's case
(supra) to hold that the remedy in case of a
dispute in between the cooperative society
and its members would be under section 70
of the Cooperative Societies Act and the
labour
court
would
not
have
the
jurisdiction. Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment holds as under :

"Alongwith
the
appeal,
some
appointment orders have been filed as
annexures. The appointment order clearly
says that the services were governed by the
Service Regulations, 1975 and the bye-laws
of the bank. It is relevant to mention here that
the services of the employees of the Bank are
governed by service regulations 1975 framed
under the Act of 1965, which provides
complete
machinery
and
adjudication.
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 vs. M.P. State
Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. 1997
(5) SCC 125 held that the 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
Learned Additional Labour Commissioner
U.P. has no jurisdiction to pass orders in the
nature it has been passed."

11. The said judgments were rendered
while interpreting the provisions of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and the U.P.
4 All. U.P. Civil Secretariat Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Lko Vs. U.P. Co-Operative
 Tribunal Lko & Ors.
841
Cooperative Societies Act would thus be
binding on this court. The judgment in the
case of K.A. Annamma (supra) does not
take
into
consideration
the
earlier
judgments of the Supreme Court in the case
of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.
(supra) and in the case of Prabhu Dayal
(supra) and the same is also rendered in
the context of the provisions of Kerala
Cooperative Societies Act.

12. Thus, in the facts of the present
case, the law as propounded by the
Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad
Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) would
hold the field.

13. The issue with regard to the
cooperative society being an 'industry' as
defined under section 2(k) of the Industrial
Disputes Act were neither raised before the
labour court nor contested.

14. In the light of the said, I am of the
firm view that the labour court has erred in
passing the award for the period 2001 up to
2006. There being no dispute that the
award dated 29.03.2004 has already been
satisfied, the order dated 17.04.2017 is not
sustainable and is set aside.

15. The writ petition stands disposed
off in terms of the said order.
----------
(2022)04ILR A841
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 13574 of 2018
alongwith other connected matters

U.P. Civil Secretariat Primary Co-Operative
Bank Ltd. Lko ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Co-Operative Tribunal Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vinod Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anurag Srivastava, Rakesh Srivastava

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, - U.P. Co-Operative Societies
Act, 1965 - Sections 3, 3(2), 66, 68 & 68(2):
- Registrar - Surcharge - Primary Cooperative Societies - Complaint received
alleging irregularities committed by the
employees & members of Committee of
Management - an investigating committee
was constituted - prima facie certain
irregularities were revealed - impugned
proceeding as well as order passed by Joint
Registrar/Additional
Commissioner
&
Additional Registrar Co-operative - appeals
before
Tribunal
-
tribunal
set
aside
impugned orders same to be without
jurisdiction - writ petition - the powers can
be exercise only by the person upon whom
the powers are delegated specifically - It is
well established that the court cannot read
a statutory provisions contrary to its
language unless the same is prohibited
under the Act or has the potential to lead to
absurd results - matter remanded back to
tribunal to decide the matter afresh.
 (Para- 26, 29, 32).

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Ravi Pratap Srivastava & ors.Vs Co-operative
Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow & ors.(Misc. Single
No.1712 of 2010 decided on dated 09.04.2010),

2. Sultana Begum Vs Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1
SCC 373),

3. Maya Mathew Vs St. of Kerala & ors., (2010)
4 SCC 498),