Labour Court Can Adjudicate Service Disputes Of Workmen In Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories In UP Governed By Standing Orders Covering Condition Of Employment: Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court has held that the Industrial Dispute under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘U.P. I.D. Act’) can be raised by workmen of the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., whose service conditions are governed by Standing Orders covering the condition of employment of workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in Uttar Pradesh.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held “In view of the foregoing discussions the answer to the question referred to us is as follows: Industrial Dispute under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be raised by workmen of the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., whose service conditions are governed by Standing Orders covering the condition of employment of workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in Uttar Pradesh…The legal corollary would be that the judgment in the cases of…holding that the Labour Court is bereft of jurisdiction to adjudicate the service disputes of the workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in Uttar Pradesh governed by the Standing Orders covering the condition of employment of workmen is not a correct law.”
Senior Advocate Samir Sharma and Advocate Diptiman Singh Amicus Curiae for the Petitioners while SC Akanksha Sharma appeared for the Respondents.
The main question for consideration in the writ petitions was whether the workmen of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd. whose services are governed by the Standing Order Covering The Condition of Employment of Workmen In Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories In U.P. can raise an industrial dispute involving the provisions of U.P. I.D. Act. The question was referred to the division by the Single bench of the High Court.
The State of Uttar Pradesh framed Standing Orders regulating the Condition of Employment of Workmen in Vacuum Pan and Sugar Factories of Uttar Pradesh in 1988. Owing to the demand for revision of the Standing Orders, revised Standing Orders Governing the Condition of the Employees and Workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in Uttar Pradesh came to be framed in 2022. Disputes arose as regards the termination of the employment of several workmen.
Objections were preferred by the Sugar Mill taking the ground that since the Sugar Mills are governed under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (‘Co-operative Act, 1965’) read with U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (‘Regulations, 1975’), therefore, the adjudicating courts under the U.P. I.D. Act, 1947 had no jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate the said disputes. The objections came to be rejected by the Labour Courts holding that it had the competence to adjudicate the disputes. Several writ petitions were filed before the High Court i.e., category ‘A’ against the order rejecting the objections raised by the Sugar Mill, category ‘B’ writ petition filed against the reference orders and category ‘C’ writ petition filed by the Workmen wherein challenge was raised to the order of the Labour Court holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute since it falls under the provisions of the Co-operative Act, 1965.
Arguments were advanced by the Amicus, Counsel for Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Counsel for the workmen and Counsel for the State.
The Court held, “…the dispute touching the business of the society cannot be intermingled with the dispute pertaining to employment and service matters as they are on a different footing. An additional fact also needs to be noticed that Section 70 of the Cooperative Act, 1965 excludes disputes regarding disciplinary action to be taken against the paid servant. Nonetheless the workmen are not remediless as once the service conditions does not fall under the Cooperative Act, 1965 then in view of the Standing Orders issued from time to time the workmen have a remedy to approach the Labour Courts having jurisdiction over the matter.”
The Court said that the rule-making authorities were conscious of the interplay between the different statutory enactments and that is why a boundary was carved providing for different adjudicatory forums for the different classes of employees.
Reliance was placed on the judgments in the cases of (i) Brij Bhushan Singh and Anr v. State of U.P. and Others (2009) (ii) Cooperative Cane Development Union Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2005), (iii) Farrukhabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lko. & Ors.(2011), (iv) Sunder Lal v. The L.S.R. Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Ors. (2011), (v) Secretary Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faizabad and Anr, (2022), (vi) Pradeshik Cooperative Diary Federation Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2012), (vii) Aliganj Kshetriya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Bareilly v. Murali Lal Sharma & Anr, (2012) and (viii) Firozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. v. P.O., Labour Court, Agra & Ors (2012).
Accordingly, the Court answered the reference and held that the Labour Court has jurisdiction and competence to adjudicate the said disputes. However, the Court itself undertook the task of deciding the writ petitions in the following manner: Category ‘A’ and Category ‘B’ writ petitions were dismissed, Category ‘C’ writ petitions were allowed and directed the Labour Court to proceed with the adjudication of the cases and pass an award strictly in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Kishan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:130294-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Samir Sharma, Advocate Diptiman Singh, Amicus Curiae, Advocates Satyam Singh and Gopal Narayan
Respondents: SC Akanksha Sharma