R.C. TIWARIversusM.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. AND ORS.

                          R.C. TIWARI                                             A
                                v.
             M.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING
                   FEDERATION LTD. AND ORS.

                               APRIL 9, 1997
                                                                                  B
            [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

      Labour Law :

      llldustlial Disputes Act, 1947/M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 :      C
       S. JO( 1)/S. S~Employec dismissed for misconduct-Order confinned
in Reference under the Societies Act-On a reference under the Industlia/
Disputes Act, Labour Court holding that the domestic enqui1y was vitiated by
illegality and set aside the order of dismissal-High Cowt reversing i!--On
appeal held the finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar would operate as res     D
judicata-High Cowt justified in holding that the Labour Court has no
jwisdictio11 to decide the dispute once over and the reference itself is bad in
law.

      Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors. Etc. v. Additional Industrial
Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & Ors. Etc., AIR (1970) SC 245, held          E
inapplicable.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 9143 of 1997.

     From the Judgment and Order 8.7.96 of the Madhya Pradesh High                F
Court in M.P. No. 2077 of 1992.

      S.B. Upadhyay and Ashok Kumar Gupta for the Petitioner.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                  G
      Delay condoned.

      The only question in this case is : whether the refen;nce under
Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the "Act")
is maintainable in view of the provisions contained in the M.P. Co-               H
                                   795
    796                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the 'Societies Act')? Admittedly,
    the petitioner was dismissed from service for his misconduct. Thereafter,
    he sought a reference under the Societies Act which was confirmed and
    became final. On a reference made under the Act, the Labour Court in
    case No. 48/85 held that domestic enquiry was vitiated by illegality and
B   accordingly it set aside the order of dismissal. In Writ Petition No. 2077/92
    by judgment dated July 8, 1996, the High Court has held that in view of
    the provisions contained in Section 55 of the Societies Act, the Labour
    Court has no jurisdiction and, therefore, the reference is bad. It is also held
    that since the finding was recorded by the Deputy Registrar, Co-op.
    Societies against the petitioner in the award, it operates as res judicata. The
C   question is whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law.
    Section 55 of the Societies Act postulates thus :

             "55. Registrar's .power to determine conditions of employment
             in societies. - (1) The Registrar may, from time to time frame
D            rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a
             society or class of societies and the society or class of Societies
             to which such terms and conditions of employment are ap-
             plicable shall comply .with the order that may be issued by the
             Registrar in this behalf.
E               (2) Where a dispute including a dispute regarding terms of
             employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken
             by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the
             Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank
             of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision
F            shall be binding on the society and its employees.

                 Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to above
             shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within
             thirty days from the date of the order sought to be impugned.
G               Provided further that in computing the period of limitation
             under the foregoing proviso the time requisite for obtaining
             copy of the order shall be excluded."

          Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on
H Section 64 of the Act dealing with disputes referable to the arbitration
    R.C. TIWARI v. M.P. STATE CO-OP MKTG. FEDERATION LID. 797

and contends that the dispute of dismissal from service of the employee of     A
the society being not one of the disputes referable to the arbitration under
the Societies Act, the award of the Dy. Registrar is without jurisdiction.
He relied on the decision of this Court in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.
& Ors. Etc. v. Additional lndusllial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad &
Ors. Etc., AIR (1970) SC 245. He also places reliance on Section 93 of
the Societies Act which states that nothing contained in the Madhya
                                                                               B
Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act 1958, the M.P. Industrial
Workmen (Standing Orders) Act, 1959 and the M.P. Industrial Rela-
tions Act, 1960 shall apply to a Society registered under this Act. By
necessary implication, application of he Act has not been excluded
and that, therefore, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide the           c
matter. We find no force in the contention. Section 55 of the Societies
Act gives power to tl:e Registrar to deal with disciplinary matters
relating to the employees in the Society or a class of Societies includ-
ing the terms and conditions of employment of the employees. Where
a dispute relates to the terms of employment, working conditions,              D
disciplinary action taken by a Society, or arises between a Society and
its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him, not
below the rank of Assistant Registrar, shall decide the dispute and his
decision shall be binding on the society and its employees. As regards
power under Section 64, the language is very wide, viz., "Notwithstand-
ing anything contained in any other law for the time being in force any        E
dispute touching the constitution, a management or business of a Society
or the liquidation of a Society shall be referred to the Registry by any
of the parties to the dispute." Therefore, the dispute relating to the
management or business of the Society is very comprehensive as
repeatedly held by this Court. As a consequence, special procedure has         F
been provided under this Act. Necessarily, reference under Section 10
of the Societies Act stands excluded. The judgment of this Court arising
under Andhra Pradesh Act has no application to the facts for the reason
that under that Act the dispute did not cover the dismissal of the
servants of the society which the Act therein was amended.
                                                                               G
     Admittedly, there is a finding recorded by the Dy. Registrar
upholding the misconduct of the petitioner. That constitutes res judicata.
No doubt, Section 11 CPC does not in terms apply because it is not a
Court, but a Tribunal constituted under the Societies Act is given
special jurisdiction. So, the principle laid down thereunder mutatis           H
    798                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A mutandis squarely applies to the procedure provided under the Act. It
    operates as res judicata. Thus, we find that the High Court is well justified
    in holding that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute
    once over and the reference itself is bad in law.

           The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
B
    G.N.                                                      Petition dismissed.