Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arose from a jurisdictional challenge by twenty-four Co-operative Central Banks in Andhra Pradesh against a reference made by the State Government under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. The reference concerned an industrial dispute between the banks and their workmen, represented by the Andhra Pradesh Bank Employees Federation, Hyderabad, regarding seventeen service conditions such as salary scales, allowances, provident fund, leave rules, promotion, and retirement age, as well as two issues about the justification of transfers of employees in two specific banks. The banks objected that the dispute exclusively fell within the purview of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964), which they argued was a complete code and, having received Presidential assent, prevailed over the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal treated the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and rejected the banks' plea, holding that the dispute was not one that could be decided by the Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act. The banks then approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the Tribunal's order. The banks preferred the present civil appeals by certificate to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal was required to be referred to the Registrar under section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and consequently, whether the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal was barred. The banks contended that the disputes touched the business of the society, that the Registrar had wide powers including amendment of bye-laws under section 16(5), and that any relief granted by the Tribunal would be contrary to law because it would alter the bye-laws. The workmen argued, and the courts below held, that the Registrar had no competence to grant the reliefs claimed and that the dispute did not concern the business of the society. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act, particularly sections 16, 61, 62, and 133. It accepted the general proposition that if a State Act conflicts with a Central Act and the State Act has received Presidential assent, the State Act prevails. However, it held that section 61 does not cover the present dispute because the dispute must 'touch the business' of the society. Relying on its earlier decision in Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Dulichand Jugraj Jain, the Court interpreted 'business' as the actual trading or commercial activity of the society, and not acts such as laying down service conditions of employees, which are incidental to the running of the society but are not part of its business activity. Thus, a dispute purely relating to conditions of service does not touch the business and is not referable under section 61. The Court also held that the Registrar could not give the desired reliefs because section 62(4) mandates that disputes be decided in accordance with the bye-laws, and the reliefs sought would require amendment of those bye-laws. While section 16(5) empowers the Registrar to amend bye-laws in the interest of the society, this power is not meant to resolve industrial disputes in the interest of workmen, and an arbitrator to whom the dispute is referred under section 61 has no such power. Consequently, the Registrar could not possibly grant the reliefs. On the nature of bye-laws, the Court observed that they do not have the force of statute; they are akin to contractual conditions of service or standing orders, and can be varied by the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal is not merely an enforcer of existing laws and contracts; it has the jurisdiction to modify service conditions. The Court distinguished certain precedents cited by the banks. It concluded that the reference to the Industrial Tribunal was competent, and the appeals were dismissed with the finding that no part of the reference was barred by section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Jurisdiction of Registrar - Meaning of 'Business' - Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Sections 61, 62 - The dispute related to various service conditions and transfers of employees of cooperative banks. The banks argued that the dispute touched the business of the society and was exclusively referable to the Registrar under s.61. The Court held that 'business' means actual trading or commercial activity, and does not encompass the laying down of conditions of service of employees; therefore, an industrial dispute regarding service conditions does not touch the business of the society, and s.61 does not apply, leaving the Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction intact. (Paras 209-215) B) Cooperative Law - Powers of Registrar - Limitation on Granting Relief - Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Sections 16, 61, 62(4) - The workmen's demands involved alteration of bye-laws fixing service conditions. The Court held that s.62(4) requires the Registrar to decide disputes in accordance with bye-laws, thus preventing him from granting relief that would modify bye-laws; s.16(5) power to amend bye-laws is exercisable only in the interests of the society, not for resolving industrial disputes, and cannot be used by an arbitrator; accordingly, the reliefs could not be granted by the Registrar. (Paras 216) C) Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act - Nature of Bye-laws - Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Sections 61, 62; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10 - The Court held that bye-laws of a cooperative society govern internal management and are like contractual conditions of service, not having the force of statute; the Industrial Tribunal has the power to vary contracts of service between employer and employees and is not bound by the bye-laws; therefore, altering bye-laws by granting relief does not make the Tribunal's order contrary to law, and the reference was competent. (Paras 217-218)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute referred to it under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or whether such dispute was required to be referred to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, thereby ousting the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction. It held that the dispute did not touch the business of the society, the Registrar could not grant the reliefs, and the Tribunal was competent to adjudicate the reference.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- The word 'business' in section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act
- 1964 means actual trading or commercial activity and does not include laying down conditions of service of employees
- an industrial dispute relating to service conditions of workmen employed by a co-operative society is not a dispute touching the business of the society under that Act
- the Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot grant relief that would require amendment of bye-laws because section 62(4) requires disputes to be decided in accordance with bye-laws and section 16(5) power is not intended for resolving industrial disputes
- bye-laws of a co-operative society do not have the force of statute and are akin to contractual conditions of service which can be varied by an Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- the Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant relief even if it involves altering such bye-laws
- a State Act may prevail over a Central Act if it has received Presidential assent and contains repugnant provisions
- but here no repugnancy existed because section 61 of the State Act did not cover the dispute.
