Prabhu
Dayal Vs. Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Mujuri Vikas Khand Paniyara & Ors [2008] Insc
305 (27 February 2008)
Dr.
Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
CIVIL
APPEAL NO.6227 OF 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad
High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondents - Sadhan Sahkari Samiti
Mujuri Vikas Khand Paniyara (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cooperative
society'). Challenge in this appeal was to the recovery order issued by the labour
authorities on the basis of a compromise award.
2.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Appellant
was appointed as Salesman in the respondent- society which had four employees,
as such the labour laws were not applicable to it. But the appellant filed
cases under the Payment of Wages Act, 1963 (in short the 'Act') which were
allowed and the society was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,830/-. In pursuance
of the direction in terms of Section 15 of the Act, the amount was paid to the
appellant in March, 1988. He again filed an application under Section 6-H of
the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'U.P. Act') making a
grievance that he was being paid less than minimum wages payable under the Act.
The said claim was also decided ex-parte. Thereafter he claimed that he had
been terminated. He made grievances in that regard and on that basis a
reference was made to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur which was registered as
Adjudication Case no.334 of 1987.
Before
the Labour Court, parties entered into a settlement
and an award was passed on 9.12.1988 whereunder the appellant was entitled to
receive a sum of Rs.12,726/-. However, a condition was stipulated that the
present appellant shall withdraw all applications and proceedings made before
various authorities under the labour laws including under the Act and also
under Section 6-H of the U.P. Act. The amount has been paid to the appellant.
However, he did not withdraw the proceedings and wanted their continuance, and
some adjudication has also been made ex-parte.
In the
writ petitions, stand of the appellant-society was that Act did not apply to
the society in view of the notification dated 30.6.1988. It was also urged that
the U.P. Act does not apply to it as the service conditions of the appellant
are governed by statutory regulations. The High Court found substance in the
plea raised by the respondent-society and allowed the writ petition and set
aside the orders dated 31.12.1988, 25.9.1989, 31.3.1990, 6.9.1990 and the award
dated 9.12.1988 which was made on the basis of a settlement arrived at between
the parties.
Appellant
has challenged legality of the High Court's order on the ground that in any
event an award made on compromise cannot be set aside.
3.
Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment.
4. In Himanshu
Kumar Vidyardhi and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1997 (4) SCC 391), 1t was held that industrial laws do not
apply to the employees whose service conditions are governed by statutory
rules. So, U.P. Act does not apply to employees of the cooperative society. The
notification dated 30.6.1988 issued under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short 'the Wages Act') makes the position clear that
provisions of the aforesaid Act are not applicable to the service of workman
employed under the societies which are registered with the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies. It was indicated that the salaries and conveyance etc.
paid by the registrar of the cooperative societies are also reviewed from time
to time.
5. In
R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. And Ors. (AIR
1997 SC 2652) this Court had held that in view of the arbitration clause in the
Uttar Pradesh Societies Act (in short 'Societies Act') provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable.
6.
Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view. But so far as award dated
9.12.1988 is concerned, the same was made on the basis of a settlement between
the parties. That being so, the High Court ought not to have set aside the
award. In the ultimate result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside that part
of the impugned order relating to award dated 9.12.1988. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
