Case Note & Summary
The two writ petitions were filed by employees of Shri P.K. Anna Patil Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., which had been placed under liquidation. The petitioners had lodged complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 seeking unpaid wages, dearness allowance, and other dues. The Industrial Court, by a common judgment dated 27.04.2015, dismissed all the complaints. Writ Petition No. 8886 of 2016 involved complaints that were dismissed solely on the ground of delay, the court holding that the claims for dearness allowance were stale. Writ Petition No. 8885 of 2016 involved complaints that were dismissed on two grounds: first, that no permission of the Registrar under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 had been obtained, and second, that the claims were delayed and not maintainable. The petitioners contended that they were in service until their termination on 14.05.2011, and that despite the appointment of a liquidator in January 2009, the bank continued its operations for over two years. It was under orders of the High Court that retrenchment compensation was ultimately paid. The respondents argued that Section 107 created an absolute bar against any litigation against a society in liquidation without the Registrar’s leave, relying on the Single Judge decision in Sadashiv K. Sutar v. Kolhapur Zilla Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., and that the claims were barred by limitation. The petitioners placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment in Waman Vyenkatesh Ruikar v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which had doubted the necessity of Section 107 permission in ULP proceedings and had directed the Registrar to grant permission as a matter of course. Another Division Bench in Baburao Dadarao Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra had held that it was desirable for the Industrial Court to decide wage claims so as to crystallize the workers’ rights, and that the Liquidator could not effectively adjudicate such disputes. The High Court, after examining Section 107 and the cited precedents, held that claims for unpaid wages are a recurring cause of action and delay does not bar a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act. On the question of Section 107 bar, the Court followed the Division Bench view that permission may not be necessary at all, and even if it were, the Registrar ought to grant it. The Industrial Court’s orders were therefore quashed and both sets of complaints were remitted back for decision on merits. The Court directed that the Registrar be added as a party and indicated that conditions would be set out in the later part of the judgment for the remanded proceedings. Ultimately, the writ petitions were allowed.
Headnote
A) Labour Law – Unpaid Wages – Recurring Cause of Action – Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV, Item 9 – The employees claimed unpaid dearness allowance, increments and wages over an extended period – The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints as stale and barred by limitation – Held that a claim for unpaid wages or any component of wages is a recurring cause of action; the failure to pay over time gives the aggrieved employee a continuing right to invoke Item 9 of Schedule IV – The judgment of the Industrial Court was set aside and the complaints remitted for decision on merits (Paras 9-10). B) Co-operative Societies – Winding Up – Bar of Suits – Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 107 – Section 107 provides that no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against a society under liquidation except with leave of the Registrar – The question arose whether a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 is a “legal proceeding” requiring such leave – Relying on Waman Vyenkatesh Ruikar v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the Division Bench had expressed doubt whether permission under Section 107 was at all necessary for prosecuting an ULP complaint and held that in any event the permission ought to be granted as a matter of course – Held that the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaints for want of leave (Paras 11-12). C) Co-operative Societies – Liquidation – Crystallization of Rights – MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 – Following Baburao Dadarao Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that the Industrial Court’s adjudication of wage claims is desirable to crystallize the rights of the workers; the Liquidator is not equipped to decide such disputed claims and two parallel proceedings would not result in conflicting adjudications – The Registrar’s refusal to grant permission on the ground that it would lead to dual proceedings was unsustainable – Held that the Registrar should be added as a party and the complaints must be decided by the Industrial Court (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 against a co-operative bank under liquidation are barred for want of leave under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; Whether claims for unpaid dearness allowance and wages are barred by limitation or delay.
Final Decision
Writ Petition No. 8886/2016 is allowed; the Industrial Court’s judgment dated 27.04.2015 dismissing Complaint (ULP) Nos.37/2010, 39/2010, 47/2010, 55/2011 and 57/2011 is quashed and set aside, and the complaints are remitted to the Industrial Court for decision on merits subject to conditions. Writ Petition No. 8885/2016 is also allowed; the Industrial Court’s judgment dismissing Complaint (ULP) Nos.43/2010, 33/2011, 48/2011, 50/2011, 77/2011, 79/2011 and 81/2011 is quashed and set aside, and those complaints too are remitted for fresh adjudication.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Claims for unpaid wages or any component of wages constitute a recurring cause of action
- failure to pay over time gives a continuing right to relief
- bar under Section 107 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960 does not apply to complaints under MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971 as permission may not be necessary
- even if required Registrar should grant permission as a matter of course
- an adjudication by a judicial forum is desirable to crystallize rights of claimants
