TMI Blog1969 (4) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances for subordinate staff, (6) Conveyance Charges, (7) Provident Fund and Gratuity, (8) Leave Rules, (9) Joining Time on Transfer, (1) Rules relating to departmental enquiry against employees for misconduct, (11) Probationary Period and Confirmation, (12) Working Hours and Overtime Allowance, (13) Age of Retirement,, (14) Security, (15) Common Good Fund, (16) Service Conditions and (17) Promotions. The second and the third issues both related to the question whether the transfers of some employees of two of the Banks, The Vijayawada Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., Vijayawada, and The Vizianagaram Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Vizianagaram, were justified and, if not, to what reliefs were the employees entitled. Before the Industrial Tribunal, one of the grounds raised on behalf of the Banks was that the reference of the disputes to the Tribunal was invalid, because such disputes were required to be referred for decision to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act No. 7 of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), and the effect of the provisions of the Act was to exclude the jurisdiction of the Industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of the Act. It is no doubt true that the Act is an enactment passed by State Legislature which received the assent of the President, so that, if any provision of a Central Act, including the Industrial Disputes Act, is repugnant to any provision of the Act, the provision of the Act will prevail and not the provision of the Central Industrial Disputes Act. The general proposition urged that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act will be barred if the disputes in question can be competently decided by the Registrar under s. 61 of the Act is, therefore, correct and has to be accepted. The question, however, that has to be examined is whether the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal in the present cases was such as was required to be referred to the Registrar and to be decided by him) under section 61 of the Act. In order to properly appreciate the submissions which have been made on behalf of the Banks by their counsel, it is necessary to set out the provisions of sections 16, 61, 62 and 133. of the Act which are as follows :- 16. Amendment of bye-laws of a society :-(I) No amendment of any bye-law of a society shall be val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society; 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 the society and any other society; such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision. Explanation :-For the purposes of this subsection a dispute shall include- (i) a claim by a society for any debt or other amount due to it from a member, past member or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, whether such debt or other amount be admitted or not; (ii) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or other amount due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor whether such debt or other amount due be admitted or not; (iii) a claim by a society against a member, past member or the nominee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Registrar may, by order for reasons to be recorded therein, withdraw any reference transferred under clause (b) of sub-section (I ) or referred under clause (c) of that sub-section and may elect to decide the dispute himself or transfer it to any other person under clause (b) of subsection (I ) or refer it to any other arbitrator under clause (c) of that subsection. (4) The Registrar, such person or arbitrator shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws and such decision shall, subject to the provisions of section 76, be final. Pending final decision on the dispute, the Registrar, such person or arbitrator, as the case may be, may make such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessary in the,, interests of justice. 133. Act to override other laws :-The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Reliance was placed on the non-obstante clause Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force occurring in s. 61 of the Act which has the effect that a dispute covered by this section must necessarily be referred to the Registrar fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Bombay High Court in Farkhundali Nannhay v. Potdar (V.B.) ([1962] I L.L.J. 51), in which also s. 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act No. 7 of 1925 came up for interpretation. Learned counsel for the appellants also brought to our notice a decision of a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Cooperative Milk Societies Union, Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and others([1958] 2 L.L.J. 61), where a dispute as to wages, wage-scales and dearness allowance was held not to be a dispute within the meaning of that word as defined in the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940, and sought to distinguish it on the ground that the decision in that case turned on the meaning specially given in that Act to the word dispute . It appears to us that it is not necessary to examine in detail the reasons given by the High Courts in the above cited cases for the interpretation placed by them on provisions similar to s. 61 of the Act in view of a very recent decision of this Court in The Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Dalichand Jugraj Others( [1969] 1 S.C.R. 887). In that case, this Court had to interpret section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ascertained from the objects of the society, it is 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 can be said to be part of its business. We, however, agree that the word touching is very wide and would include any matter which relates to or concerns the business of a society, but we are doubtful whether the word affects should also be used in defining the scope of the word touching . This comment was made when taking. notice of the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Farkhundli v. Potdar([1962] I.L.L.J. 51.). The Court also held : - One other limitation on the word dispute may also be placed and that is that the word dispute covers only those disputes which are capable of being resolved by the Registrar or his nominee. Considering the similarity between S. 61 of the Act and S. 91 (1 of the Maharashtra Act 32 of 1961, we are of the opinion that the interpretation already placed by this Court on the provisions of S. 91 (I) of the Maharashtra Act 32 of 1961 is fully applicable to the provisions of S. 61 of the Act with which we are concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 bringing facts to our notice in the present appeals, the Rules framed by the Andhra Pradesh Government under the Act, and the bye-laws 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 S. 62(4) of the Act, he is specifically required to decide the dispute referred to him in. accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws. It may also be noticed that a dispute referred to the Registrar under S. 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 refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f decisions of this Court in Dalmia Cement (Bharat), Ltd., New Delhi v. Their Workmen and Another([1961] II L.L.J. 130); The Management of Marina Hotel v. The Workmen ([1962] 3 S.C.R. 1.) ; Cinema Theatres v. Their Workmen([1264] II L.L.J. 128); and The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi v. Their Workmen Vice Versa([1964] T. S.C.R. 234). In all these cases, it was held that an Industrial Tribunal acted illegally in prescribing leave in excess of the number of days laid down by the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. In S. 22 of that Act there was a specific prohibition that leave for sickness or casual leave with full wages shall not exceed 12 days; and it was held that a direction made by the Tribunal granting to the workmen more than 12 days sickness or casual leave was illegal. The principle of the decisions in those cases does not, however, appear to us to be applicable to the cases before us, because, in the present cases, there is no prohibition contained in the Act that the conditions of service prescribed are not to be altered. The argument on behalf of the Bank, however, was that the bye-laws, which contained the conditions of service, are themselves law, so that any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Tribunals have the right even to vary contracts of service between the employer and the employees which jurisdiction can never be exercised by a civil court or a Registrar acting under the Co-operative Societies Act, so that the circumstance that, in granting relief on issue No. 1, the Tribunal will have to vary the special bye-laws framed by the Cooperative Bank does not lead to the inference that the Tribunal would be incompetent to grant the reliefs sought in this reference. In fact, the reliefs could only be granted by the Industrial Tribunal and could not fall within the scope of the powers of the Registrar dealing with a dispute under s. 61 of the Act. We may also, in this connection, take notice of the submission made by learned counsel that the Registrar could have granted relief, under S. 16 (5) of the Act if he thought that it was advisable to grant that relief to the workmen. in our opinion, this submission must be rejected for two reasons. The first reason is that action taken by the Registrar under s. 16(5) of the Act will not be a decision on a dispute referred to him under s. 61 of the Act. When dealing with the dispute under s. 61 of the Act, the Registrar is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
