Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE PATIALA CENTRAL COOPERATIVEBANK LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE PATIALA CENTRAL COOPERATIVEBANK EMPLOYEES UNION & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/09/1996
BENCH:
SEN, S.C. (J)
BENCH:
SEN, S.C. (J)
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
W I T H
[Civil Appeal No.4074/88; and 4075-76/88]
S.B. Majmudar, J.
I have gone through the judgment prepared by my
esteemed learned brother Sen, J. I am in entire agreement
with the finding reached by learned brother Sen, J., that
the Agreement governed by the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’)
dated 28th May 1973 which had a life of four years, expired
on 31st March 1977 which had thereafter even though its
effects continued as per Section 19 sub-Section (2) of the
Act and were binding on the parties, the entire agreement
including the clause relating to dearness allowance was
terminated by one of the parties to the Agreement, namely,
the Central Cooperative Bank when the administrator
appointed under Section 28 of the Punjab Cooperative
Societies Act, 1961 issued a notice dated 25th February 1978
under Section 19(2) of the Act for terminating the said
Agreement and when the said termination was ratified by the
Directors of the Bank by Resolution No.7 at the meeting of
the Board of Directors held on 9th April 1978. Consequently
that Agreement ceased to operate thereafter. I also
respectfully agree with the finding of my learned brother
that this aspect of the case was not disputed on behalf of
the Employees’ Union in the counter affidavit affirmed by
Maninderjit Singh, Joint Secretary of the Employees’ Union
and consequently the fact that notice was given on 25th
February 1978 terminating the Agreement dated 28th May 1973
is not in dispute.
However on the aforesaid finding reached by my learned
brother on the facts of this case and to which I
respectfully agree, in my view, on further question survives
for consideration in the present litigation between the
parties, namely, whether Section 84-B of the Punjab
Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 inserted by Punjab
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Legislature by Amending Act 26 of 1981 was repugnant to the
provisions of Sections 9A and 19(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act which was a Central Legislation. The High Court
has taken the view, ignoring the factual position that the
Agreement in question had stood terminated with effect from
25th February 1978, that Section 84-B was repugnant to the
aforesaid provisions of the Act and as the enactment of the
sad Section was covered by Entry 22 of the Concurrent List
III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India dealing
with ‘Trade Unions, Industrial and Labour Disputes’, the
said provision to the extent of repugnancy became void as
per Article 251 read with Article 254 of the Constitution of
India as admittedly the said provision Inserted by amending
Act 26 of 1981 was not reserved by the State Legislature for
consideration of the President and had not received his
assent as required by Article 254 sub-Article (2) of the
Constitution. In my opinion the said exercise was not open
to the High Court on the admitted facts of the present case.
That even under Section 19(2) of the Act the said Agreement
had ceased to operate from 25th February 1978 and
consequently there remained on question of any repugnancy of
Section 84-B on the hand and Sections 9A and 19(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act on the other. In short that question
did not arise for consideration of the High Court on the
aforesaid well established facts on record. In my view once
this factual conclusion is arrived at as rightly arrived at
by my learned brother Sen, J., on occasion arises for this
Court nor did it arise for the High Court to go into the
legislative competence of the State Legislature in enacting
Section 84-B and to examine and pronounce upon the said
question. On this short ground, therefore, I would set aside
the decision of the High Court declaring Section 84-B as
ultra vires the State Legislature on account of repugnancy
of Section 84-B with the provisions of Sections 9A and 19(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appeal of the bank is
required to be allowed on this short ground keeping the
question of vires of Section 84-B open for consideration in
an appropriate case. However, with great respect I do not
concur with the view of my learned brother Sen, J., that the
said section will operate even de hors the binding agreement
under Section 19(2) of the Act. On this aspect I would
express on opinion as that question, in my view, does not
arise for consideration on the facts of the present case. I,
however, agree with the final conclusion to which my learned
brother Sen,., has reached that these appeals are required
to be allowed, but on the aforesaid different reasoning.