Appellant – The Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.
Respondent – Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange
Decided on – 30 March, 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1488 OF 2017
Bench: A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal
Statues Referred:
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Co-operative Societies Act, 1912
The Constitution of India 1949
Case Referred:
Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad & Ors.,
R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors.
Facts:
The appellant, Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited is a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.The respondent had joined the services in the appellant corporation in the year 1975 as an Inspector. He was promoted to the post of Branch Manager (Class-I) in the year 2000.
For certain acts of misconduct allegedly committed by the respondent, a charge-sheet was served upon him and the departmental inquiry conducted, which resulted in dismissing the respondent from service. The respondent approached the Cooperative Court at Aurangabad, on April 19, 2007 challenging the orders of dismissal from service as well as the order rejecting the departmental appeal by filing Dispute No. 61 of 2007.
On receiving the notice in the said dispute petition, the Corporation filed an application for rejection of the petition of the respondent on the ground that the Cooperative Court set up under the Act did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the service dispute between the employer and the employee, and was not covered by the provisions of Section 91 of the Act.
The Cooperative Court dismissed the said application holding that it had the requisite jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Order of the Cooperative Court was challenged by the appellant before the Cooperative Appellate Court in the form of an appeal. This appeal was dismissed confirming the orders of the Cooperative Court.
Further challenge was laid by the appellant by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. This writ petition has also been dismissed.
Issue:
Whether the Cooperative Court established under the Act has the requisite jurisdiction to decide ‘service dispute’ between a cooperative society established under the Act and its employees.
Whether such a dispute can be treated as dispute relating to ‘management of the society’
Appellant’s contention:
Appellant in a petition filed stated that the Cooperative Court set up under the Act did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the service dispute between the employer and the employee, inasmuch as the dispute in question did not touch upon the business of the society and was not covered by the provisions of Section 91.
Respondent’s contention:
The respondent’s counsel contended that the respondent was not claiming reinstatement as he had attained the age of superannuation when the dispute was filed. Therefore, while challenging the resolution of the respondent dismissing his services, the respondent was seeking compensation for wrongful dismissal. It was further argued that since reinstatement was not claimed, the award of compensation was within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court.
He further submitted that the word ‘officer’ occurring in Section 91 would include disputes between the management and its officers, i.e. employees. He also submitted that the disputes relating to ‘management’ of a society should be read widely to include service disputes as well.
Judgement:
“The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors.[10]. However, a close scrutiny of the said judgment would reveal that the power of the Registrar to deal with the dispute of dismissal from service of the employee was recognised having regard to Section 55 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 which gave specific power to the Registrar to determine conditions of employment in societies, including deciding the disputes regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary actions taken by the society arising between the society and its employees. Therefore, that judgment would be of no help to the respondent.”
“It may be noted that the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has itself proceeded on the basis that if the dispute relates to reinstatement, the Cooperative Court will not have any jurisdiction. The main reason for conferring jurisdiction upon the Cooperative Court in the instant case is that the Cooperative Court has replaced the Civil Court and, therefore, powers of the Civil Court are given to the Cooperative Court.
However, the High Court erred in not further analyzing the provisions of Section 91 of the Act which spells out the specific powers that are given to the Cooperative Court and those powers are of limited nature. Our aforesaid analysis leads to the conclusion that the disputes between the cooperative society and its employees are not covered by the said provision.
The court may hasten to add that if the provision is couched in a language to include such disputes (and we find such provisions in the Cooperative Societies Acts of certain States) and it is found that the Cooperative Society Act provides for complete machinery of redressal of grievances of the employees, then even the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act shall be barred having regard to the provisions of such a special statute vis-a-vis general statute like the Industrial Disputes Act {See – Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.[11]}.”
“In Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad & Ors.[12], an employee working as Additional Supervisor was removed from service by giving one month’s pay in lieu of Notice under the Staff Regulations. He had issued a notice under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, as he was an employee as defined under section 2(13) of the said Act.
One of the questions that was considered by this Court was whether a dispute raised by the said employee for setting aside his removal from service on the ground that it was an act of victimization and for reinstatement in service with back wages was one ‘touching the management or business of the society’, within the contemplation of the Co-operative Societies Act. This Court held that the expression ‘any dispute’ referred to in section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 did not cover a dispute of the kind raised by the respondent employee against the bank”
Held:
As a result, the court held that this appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the Division Bench judgment, on which reliance is placed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, is overruled. As a consequence, it is held that the petition filed by the respondent before the Cooperative Court is not maintainable.
It would, however, be open to the respondent to file a civil suit. Needless to mention, in such a civil suit filed by the respondent, he would be at liberty to file application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in order to save the limitation.
Prepared by – Devyansh Narula