Nattakam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Priya Mol K.A.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/6TH CHAITHRA, 1939** ## **OP(LC).No. 3970 of 2013 (O)** **----------------------------** ## **I.D.NO.37/2012 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI, DATED 01/08/2013** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/MANAGEMENT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------** **1. NATTAKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.3839, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 012, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY** **2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS,** - **NATTAKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.3839, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 012, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRESIDENT** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH SRI.V.VINCENT DIDACOSE SMT.K.P.SHEEBA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/WORKMAN:** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SMT.PRIYA MOL K.A., KUNNATHU KIZHAKETHIL (DEVAKRIPA) HOUSE, KUMMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 035.** **2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI - 686 033** **THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-03-2017 ALONG WITH O.P.(LC).NO.4113/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(LC).No. 3970 of 2013 (O) ---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**| |---| |**--------------------------------------**| |**EXHIBIT P1**<br>**:**<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT**| |**EXHIBIT P2**<br>**:**<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE**| |**RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT**| |**EXHIBIT P3**<br>**:**<br>**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 01/08/2013 OF THE**| |**INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**| |**----------------------------------------**| |**NIL**| **//True Copy//** ## **P.A. To Judge** **Bb** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J** **--------------------------------------------------** ## **O.P.(LC)Nos.3970 & 4113 of 2013 -------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 27[th] DAY OF MARCH, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** O.P.(L.C.)No.3970/2013 and 4113/2013 arise out of an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki in I.D.No.37/2012. The said industrial dispute arises out of a reference made by the State Government vide G.O.(Rt.)No.815/12/LBR dated 30.4.2012 and the issue referred for adjudication was as to whether the denial of employment to Smt.Priyamol K.A. (petitioner in O.P.(L.C.) No.4113/2013) who was working as a Peon in Nattakom Service Co-operative Bank Limited is justifiable. After considering the rival contentions with reference to the evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal passed an award dated 1.8.2013 and the operative portion of the said award reads thus; - “Therefore, an award is passed holding as follows: - 1) The denial of employment to the workman by the management is unjustifiable and arbitrary. - 2) The workman is not entitled for reinstatement. Instead she is entitled to get lump sum compensation of ₹75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) from the management. - 3) The workman is not entitled for any back wages or any O.P.(LC)Nos.3970 & 4113/13 -2- attendant benefits. - 4) The management shall pay the compensation to the workman within one month from the date of publication/pronouncement of this award. Failing which the management shall pay an interest @8% per annum for the above amount till the date of payment.” 2. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal to the extent of holding that the workman is not entitled for reinstatement, the workman is before this Court in O.P.(LC)No.4113/2013. Challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal to the extent of directing payment of a lumpsum compensation of 75,000/-, the management is before₹ this Court in O.P.(LC)No.3970/2013. 3. During the pendency of these Original Petitions, a Larger Bench of this Court in **Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.** v. **Santhosh (2015 (4) KLT 163)** held in the context of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that Section 69(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act does not admit any exception regarding jurisdiction O.P.(LC)Nos.3970 & 4113/13 -3- of the forum provided under Section 69 of the said Act. Para.35 of the said judgment reads thus: “35. There is one more indication in Section 69(1) of the 1969 Act itself, which clearly indicates that the State Legislation intended that settlement of any dispute as referred to under Section 69(1) read with Section 2(i) shall not be taken by any other Court. The last portion of Section 69(1) reads that “such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute”. The Legislature intended that no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings. As noted above, Section 100 of the Act, which provides for the bar of jurisdiction of courts reads, “no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which provision is made in the Act”, but, while enacting the provision of Section 69(1), the Legislature used the phrase 'no Court'. There is a clear intendment of excluding the jurisdiction of all Courts. The statutory scheme does not thus indicate that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to take cognizance of dispute falling within the Industrial Disputes Act regarding employees or workmen in the Co-operative Society, was exempted from such exclusion. Section 69(1) O.P.(LC)Nos.3970 & 4113/13 -4- does not admit any exception regarding jurisdiction of the forum provided under Section 69. As noted above the exception provided for in the 1932 Act and 1951 Act in the words “other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid servant of the society” was withdrawn and not continued in the settlement of Dispute as delineated by Section 69 of the Act. As noted above, the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 contains the provision for settlement of disputes including right of appeal, revision and the procedure. Detailed provisions have also been laid down in the 1969 Rules. Some powers of the Civil Court while deciding a dispute under Section 70 has also been specifically given. The 1969 Act and the Rules provided for a complete mechanism for settlement of disputes. Hence, the Legislature intended to exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts in the context of settlement of disputes. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 having provided for settlement of disputes of workmen, the Forum so provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is clearly inconsistent with the forum provided for under Section 69 of the 1969 Act. The provisions of the 1969 Act as noted above clearly indicate that the object and purpose of the provision was to exclude and override any other Forum for settlement of disputes including the Forum of Labour Court as O.P.(LC)Nos.3970 & 4113/13 -5- provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As noted above, the 1969 Act having been enacted with the Presidential assent, the Act clearly intended to do away with the forum provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Section 69 are clear and unambiguous and full effect has to be given to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used therein.” 4. In view of the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court in the decision referred to supra, the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal vide Government order 30.4.2012 is not legally maintainable and the only remedy available to the workman, namely, the petitioner in O.P.(L.C.)No.4113/2013 is to make a reference of the dispute in terms of Section 69(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 5. In such circumstances, these Original Petitions are disposed of setting aside the award dated 1.8.2013 of the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki in I.D.No.37/2012 (Ext.P3 in O.P.(L.C.) No.3970/2013 and Ext.P6 in O.P.(L.C.)No.4113/2013) and giving liberty to the workman, namely, the petitioner in O.P.(L.C.) No.4113/2013 to approach the competent authority under Section 69(1) of the Act within a period of two months from the -6- O.P.(LC)Nos.3970 & 4113/13 date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. All the contentions raised by both the sides are left open to be raised and adjudicated before the competent authority under Section 69(1) of the Act. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Bb True copy P.A. To Judge