GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. v. ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER& ORS

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1007

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN, TARUN CHATTERJEE

Case summary

GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. v. ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER& ORS.pdf

Judgment text

~ f -t GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. v. ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER& ORS. JANUARY 17, 2007 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ. ] ·~ U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965-Sections 128, 135, 70, 71 and r 102-U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975- Regulation 42-:-U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules-Rules 130 and 131- U. P.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 6H-Employees ofCo-operative Bank-Ex gratia payment-Entitlement-Board of Directors passing resolution for grant-Registrar annulling the resolutions-Additional Labour Commissioner holding Registrar's annulling order proper and directing payment of ex-gratia amount-Correctness of-Held: Additional Labour Commissioner not competent to declare statutory order of the Registrar as improper-Since Co-operative Societies Law provides for complete machinery, Industrial Law not applicable thus, ALC's Jurisdiction I wrongly invoked and the order null and void-Ex-gratia payment being an incentive for good work, thus governed by Regulation 42 which requires prior approval ofRegistrar and the same was not sought-Also settlement between the bank and its employees being private one since not arrived at before the conciliation officer not legally enforceable-Thus, employee of Bank not entitled to ex-gratia payment-However payment already made to employees not to recovered.

Interpretation ofStatutes-Legal principle-General Act should lead ;~-· to the special Act-Thus, U. P. Co-operative Societie~ Act, aspecial enactment applicable with regard to employees of co-operative societies would prevail over all other Labour Laws_. :. UP. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Appellant-Bank is a Cooperative Society registered under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the Rules. The services ofthe employees ofthe Bank are governed by the provisions of the U. P. Cooperative S'ocieties .... Employees Service Regulation, 1975 framed by the U. P. Cooperative y Institutional Service Board. State Government issued a circular which prohibited ex-gratia payment (over and above pay) by Cooperative Societies. '. The Registrar of the Cooperative Societies issued a similar circular and -fex-gratia payments to employees were suspended. However, the Board of Directors passed a resolution for grant ofex-gratia to the employees.

The Chairman of the Union and the Bank entered into an agreement for ex-gratia payment for 1999-2000 without Registrar's permission under Regulation 42 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. Board of Directors ratified the said agreement and also resolved that Registrar's concurrence was not required. Thereafter, the Secretary wrote to the Chairman to refer to the Board of Directors resolutions to the Registrar, but the Chairman failed. Secretary then himself referred the matter to the Registrar. Board ofDirectors noted the ban on ex-gratia and still decided to pay the same for 1999-2000 onwards. The Registrar acting under Section 128(1) referred to Secretary's letters to the Chairman under Rule 130 and granted time to the Bank to reconsiderits resolutions. In the meantime, employees of the Union filed an application under section 6H(l) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the basis of rights under the Agreement. Addi.

tional Labour Commissioner allowed the ~pplication and issued recovery certificate. Board of Directors approved ex-gratia payments again. Secretary again \ referred the resolution and the Registrar annulled all Bciard ofDirectors resolutions in exercise of. powers under s. 128 of the 1965 Act No appeal was filed against the Registrar's Order. Bank filed Writ Petition which. was allowed and the matter was remanded to ALC. ALC held that the Registrar's annulment order was not proper and directed payment ofexgratia amount as per the BOD's resolutions. Bank again filed Writ Petition which was dismissed. High Court upheld the order passed by Addi. Labour Commissioner. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The Labour Court and Industrial Laws are not applicable where complete machinery has been provided under the provisions of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act.

The Additional Labour Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass orders in the nature it has been passed. Thus, the order of High Court is set aside. [Paras 81 & 83) [1052-F, 1055-B-C] 2. 1. The general legal principle in interpretation of statutes is that 'the general Act should lead to the special Act'. Upon this general principle of law, the intention of the U. P legislature is clear, that the special GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. v. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. 1009 enactment UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 alone should apply in the matter ofemployment ofCo-operative Societies to the exclusion ofall other Labour Laws. It is a complete code in itself as regards employment in cooperative societies and its machinery and provisions. The general Act-U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a whole has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the UPCS Act.

This is also clear from necessary implication that the legislature could not have intended 'head-on-conflict and collision' between authorities under different Acts. [Para 59) [1033-B-D] The Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. The Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh & Ors, [1969) 2 SCC 43; R. C. Tiwari v. MP. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. , (1997) 5 SCC 125; Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State ofBihar & Ors. , [1999) 9 SCC 620; Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank & Anr. , [2000) 4 SCC 406; State ofPunjab v. Labour Court, Jul/under & Ors. , [1980) 1 SCC 4 and U. P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr. , [2004) 8 SCC 402, referred to. , i ' 2. 2. A prior general Act may be affected by a subsequent particular or special Act if the subject-matter of the particular Act prior to its enforcement was being governed by the general provisions of the earlier Act.

In such a case the operation of the particular Act may have the effect ofpartially repealing the general Act, or curtailing its operation, or adding conditions to its operation for the particular cases. (Para 62) (1036-C-D] 'Principles ofStatutory Interpretation' by G. P. Singh, referred to. 2. 3. A general Act's operation may be curtailed by a later Special Act even ifthe general Act will be more readily inferred when the later Special Act also contains an overriding non-obstante provision. Therefore the Additional Labour Commissioner's, jurisdiction was wrongly invoked and his order under section 6H of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is without jurisdiction and hence null and void. In view of the said general legal principle, it is immaterial whether or not the government has enforced section 135 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 because, in any case s. 135 had been included in the Act only by way of clarification and abundant caution.

In the alternative ifit is to be presumed that the ingredients of s. 6H are not satisfied then also there is no ~ ~ t- • adjudicated claim but only a highly disputed claim of the workman. [Paras 63, 64 & 65] [1036-E, 1037-E-F, 1037-G] Central Inland. Water Transport Corporation v. The Workmen and Another, [1974] 4 SCC 696 and Town Municipal Council, Athani v. The Presiding Officer Labour Courts, Hubli and Ors, Etc. , (1969] 1 SCC 873, referred to. -'(' 3. 1. The ALC, in law is not competent to declare the statutory order I of the Registrar, CS, under section 128 of the UPCS Act to be 'not proper' ·l and thereby to disregard the same. An order under S. 128 is final and j j binding and cannot be questioned in view ofS. 102 and even otherwise on ) ··1 general principles of law, an authority under the UPID Act cannot ignore or wish away the statutory consequences of the statutory order passed by "! the Registrar under sections 128, 102 etc of the UP Co-operative Societies Act.

Also the Registrar's directions and order requiring the BOD to l I reconsider its (offending) resolutions and finally annulling the same in ~ exercise of his powers under S. 128 are statutory in nature. They are still valid and occupy the field. They become final and binding under s. 102 \ because, no appeal was filed under S. 98 of the CS Act and no arbitration reference was made under Sections 70 and 71 of the CS Act. [Paras 68 & 69] [1044-B-D] 3. 2. ALC and the High Court wrongly appreciated the Secretary's functions and procedure under Rule 130 as subsisting rather than merely supplementing the Chairman's power and procedure, including suo moto power and procedure, under S. 128 ofthe Act r/w Rule 131. The Secretary as well as the Registrar fully complied with the procedure under s. 128 and ·~. ,.. Rule 130 on facts. (Paras 70 & 72) (1044-E, 1048-E] -,,. , Nedurimilli Janardhana Reddy v. Progress of Democratic Students Union & Ors.

, (1994] 6 SCC 506 and Life Insurance Corporation ofIndia v. Escorts Ltd. & Ors. , [1986] 1 SCC 264, referred to. 3. 3. In the instant case, the Additional Labour Commissioner allowed the payment as an ex~gratia payment to the employees ofthe Cooperative .. ... "f Bank from the public fund. The meaning ofthe word 'Bonus' according to the new English dictionary is a boon or gift, over and above, what is I j I GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. v. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. lOll normally due as remuneration to be received. This imports the concept of some ex-gratia payment. It was ex-gratia payment on account of which it is not possible to employ a term ofservice on the basis ofemployed contract. The payment made as ex-gratia payment would not constitute any precedent for future years. The ex-gratia payment made in the instant case was neither in the nature of production bonus nor incentive bonus nor customary nor any statutory bonus. It cannot be regarded as part of the contract 'employment'.

Therefore, the ex-gratia payment made by the bank cannot be regarded as remuneration paid or payable to the employees in fulfillment ofthe terms of the contract ofemployment within t~e meaning of definition under Section 2(22) of the I. D. Act, 1947. [Para 73] [1048-F-H, 1049-A) 3. 4. The Registrar has power to determine the terms of the employment of the Society from time to time, frame regulations to regulate the emoluments and other conditions of service etc. under Section 121 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The Registrar has power to annul the Resolution of the Cooperative Societies or cancel the orders passed by an officer of the Society in certain cases under Section 128.

The Registrar can cancel any order passed by an officer of a Cooperative Society, if he is of the opinion that the Resolution or the order, as the case may be, is not covered by the objects of the society or is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the bye-laws of the Society. Rule 130 gives the power to the Secretary of the Cooperative Society to move the Chairman of the Society in writing to refer the matter to the Registrar for his decision. In Section 135, the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall not apply to Cooperative Societies. [Para 74] [1049-B-E] 3. 5. The emoluments and other kinds of allowances payable to the employees ofthe Bank are also governed by the provisions contained in the Service Regulations, 1975. In the instant case, payment ofex-gratia amount to the employees of the bank is a policy matter.

No agreement or settlement between the bank and its employees have been arrived at before the Conciliation Officer nor any money is due to the employees under the provisions ofSection 6-J(2) of the U. P. Act, 1947 or under any settlement or any award given under the provisions of this Act. There was no settlement in the eyes of law and is not valid or enforceable or binding. Therefore, the application under Section 6-H(l) is an illegal settlement arrived at between the Chairman and the Employees' Association viz. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. [Paras 74 & 83) (1049-F-G, 1055-B) 3. 6. In view of Regulation 42 it is crystal clear that for giving pecuniary benefits or allowances to the employees governed by the Regulations, 1975, the Registrar's general or special order is necessary and if the particular Cooperative Society wants to grant the benefit, then it can be given only with the permission of the Registrar.

In the instant case, no permission was ever sought from the Registrar, rather on the contrary, action was taken contrary to the circulars issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. issued from time to time, prohibiting payment of ex-gratia in this regard. Respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter ofemployees with regard ~o the payment ofex-gratia amount which runs contrary to the Regulation 42 ofthe Service Regulations, 1975 as well as th~ Circulars issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. and the Additional Re~~strar (Banking), Cooperative Societies U. P. (Paras 76 & 77] (1050-D-F] . 3. 7.

The impugned judgment suffers from complete non-application of mind on the merits of the case in as much as whole pleadings even before the Labour Commissioner or before the High Court was that the payment ofex-gratia to the employees are against the objects ofthe society and it is in contravention of Regulation 42 of the Service Regulations, 1975 and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1965 and contrary to the provisions of the Rules 1968, Government orders/circulars of Registrar and other laws applicable, the Chairman of the bank suo motu, without there being any power or legal authority unilaterally entered into a private settlement with the employees of the bank.

To avoid such a situation of illegal agreements by the Chairman who is an elected representative and to protect misuse ofpublic fund by the employees amongst themselves, the cooperative Act Rules and Regulations framed thereunder requires prior permission ofthe Registrar Co-operative Societies for grant ofany pecuniary --,, benefits because Regulation 42 ofthe U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975 provides thatany allowance or pecuniary benefits to employees shall be given only by the special order of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, U. P. which order was missing throughout. [Para 78) (1050-H, 1051-A-D] 3. 8. The present dispute does not relate to 1947 Act, it is related to the provisions contained under the Societies Act, 1965 as well as where a circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and more specifically Regulation 42 of Service Rules, 1975. Therefore, the private settlement made does not fall under section 6-H(I) of the U. P.

Act, 1947. t GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. v. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. 1013 In other words, the payment ofex-gratia is an incentive for an employee for his good work. Therefore, it is governed by Regulation 42(2) that any cooperative society may also grant pecuniary incentive only with the prior permission of the Registrar to any employee or a class of employees for outstanding performance. It clearly provides that for payment ofex-gratia, permission of the Registrar is must. Regulation 42 is itself very clear and is not in conflict with any of the provisions of the U. P. Act, 1947. The respondents themselves admitted in their counter affidavit that the settlement was not entered into during conciliation proceeding. Therefore, the said private settlement could not have been legally enforced being an invalid settlement No private settlement can give a legal enforceable right.

It is wrong to suggest that payment of ex-gratia amount to the employees over and above their salary is the matter ofU. P. Act, 1947. It is very clear and there is special provision in Rule 42 to the Service Rules, -1975. The cooperative society is a State Government subject and every State Government has right to make laws in their respective States and there are different cooperative societies Acts in different States. [Para 79] [1051-D-H] 3. 9. With regard to the submission that ex-gratia is being paid for ; several years and therefore the ex-gratia payment should be continued, records placed reveal that ex-gratia payment was conditionally paid upto 1999-2000 and in every resolution, the Board ofDirectors has been clearly mentioning that ifthere is any objection from the Department, audit etc. , the amount ofex-gratia will be recovered from the employees. In the audit reports for several years, the auditors as well as the department have objected for such payments.

It is made clear that the payments whlch have already·been made even though there is audit objection need not be recovered from the employees. However, the employees will not be entitled for any ex-gratia payment from now onwards. [Para 80] [1052-A-C] 3. 10. Services of the employees of the Bank are governed by service regulations 1975 framed under the Act. of 1965 and the bye laws of the bank. The provisions under Section 70 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 provides complete machinery that ifthere is any dispute between the employers and the employees of the Cooperative Society, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitrator as provided under Section 70 ofthe U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. [Para 81] [1052-D-E] R. C. Tiwari v. MP. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd & Ors. , [1997] 5 sec 125, relied on. _l \ CIVIL APPELLATE illRlSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5230 of2004. -I- From the final Judgment and Order dated 4. 4.

2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12890/2003. WITH C. A. No. 523 I of2004. Sunil Gupta, Ratnakar Das, S. W. A. Qadri, Kamlendra Mishra, Rajeev Dubey, Vivek Vishnoi, Fuzail Khan, Javed M. Rao, Shahid Ali Rao and Musharraf Chawdhry for the Appellant. Sandeep Singh, Pradeep Misra for the Respondent No. l. Indira Jaisingh, Bharat Sangal, R. R. Kumar, Samyadip Chatterji and Suchita Sharma for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : l. The present appeals were filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 04. 04. 2003 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12890 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition. 2. The consequence ofthe dismissal ofthe writ petition is that the High Court has affirmed the order dated 15. 03. 2003 passed by the Addi. Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad, U. P.

, who according to the appellant has got no power to pass such an order explaining the scope of the powers of the Registrar under Section 128 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. 3. According to the appellant under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975 framed by U. P. Cooperative Industrial Service Board and which has also been approved by the Governor and published in the official gazette under Section 122 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, a full fledged remedy and mechanism to agitate the grievances ofthe employees ofCooperative Societies are already contained. According to the appellant, the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 being a special enactment will prevail over the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and in any view ofthe matter application made by the employees ofthe Bankunder f GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARl BANK LTD. 1•. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J.

] 1015 Section 6H(l) of the U. P. l. D. Act on the basis of an agreement improperly entered into is not maintainable. Therefore, it is submitted that the Addi. Labour Commissioner U. P. Ghaziabad exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order dated 15. 03. 2003. 4. By the said order, the Addi. Labour Commissioner allowed the payment of Rs. 11, l0,398 as an ex-gratia payment to the employees of the appellant-Bank for the year 1999-2000 from the public fund. According to the Bank, if such a payment is allowed, then there are 50 more such banks and employees of said Banks who will claim same relief on the ground of parity and discrimination which will erode the public money running in several crores as similar payments made were the reasons for liquidation of District Cooperative Bank, Gonda. It was further contended that if the above payment is allowed, then all credit Cooperative Societies • will crumble down and the cooperative movement shall vanish in the entire State of U. P.

BACKGROUND FACTS: 5. The U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 were framed by the U. P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board constituted by the State Government. The Government issued a circular prohibiting exgratia payment (over and above pay) hy Cooperative Societies. In September, 1989, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued circulars prohibiting payment ofex-gratia amounts on 11. 09. 1987, 10. 05. 1995, 29. 10. 1997 and 17. 02. 2000 since the same was contrary to Rules. Accordingly, ex-gratia payments to employees were suspended. However, on 13. 01. 2001, the Board of Directors passed a resolution for grant of ex-gratia to employees on 13. 01. 2001. Agreement for ex-gratia payment for 1999-2000 was entered by the Chairman of the Union without Registrar's permission under Regulation 42. Agreement reads thus: "AGREEMENT Keeping in view, the position likely to ensue on resorting to total strike, talks were held, as per programme fixed prior to 24. 01.

2001, in the interest of bank, between Sarvashri Mukesh Gaud, Nirdosh Singh, Ghandharva, Satyendra Singh, and K. P. Singh, on behalf of -~- the Cooperative Bank Employees Union Ghaziabad as well as Sarvashri S. S. Bhatia, Rakesh Sharma, Vinod Kumar and Narendra Prasad Sharma on behalfofthe Cooperative Bank StaffAssociation Union, Ghaziabad both being the organization of Bank employees on one side, and Shri Krishna Veer Singh Sirohi, the Chairman of the Bank on behalfofthe District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ghaziabad (The Soil Sahkari Bank Ltd. Ghaziabad) on the other side, on the subject of the Joint Notice No. C-1 dated 26. 12. 2000. After the talks, a consensus was arrived at to the effect that the following two demands will be met by the Chairman by the 20th ofFebruary, 2001. I. The paylllent of the ex-gratia amounts pertaining to the year 1999-2000 to the Bank employees on basis of their character rolls. 2.

- Paylllent ofone special increment to employees on completion, by them of ten years, continuous service in accordance with the circular letter of the Registrar. On the above-mentioned assurance, both the organizations, keeping in view the interest of the bank, decided thai the resorting to the total strike proposed prior to 24. 1. 2001 in accordance with the programme fixed after sending the notice No. C-1 dated 26. 12. 2000 by both the organizations is deferred to 20. 02. 2001. This consensus also was arrived at that if on account of any circumstances, the demands are not met satisfactorily within the saidfzxedperiod, the programme proposed on 24. 01. 2001 under the Notice referred to above, will be commenced with effect from 21. 2. 2001, to the legality whereof the Chairman agreed. Both the sides, after going through this agreement and after having agreed to the agreement, signed the same this 23rd day of January, 2001at5. 00 p. m.

at the Bank Head Quarters R-2/100, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Workmen's Side Employer's side On behalf of Cooperative Bank Employees Union, Ghaziabad, GHAZIABAD ZITA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. v. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 1017 Sd/- Illegible Sd/- Illegible I. Mukesh Gaud -do- (Krishna Veer Singh 2. Nirdosh Singh -do- Sirohi) Chairman, Distt. 3. Satyendra Singh -do- Cooperative Bank Ltd. 4. K. P. Singh -do- Ghaziabad. Cooperative Banks Staff Association Unit, Ghaziabad. I. S. A. Bhati Sd/- Illegible 2. Rakesh Sharma -do- 3. Vinod Kumar -do- 4. Narendra Prasad Sharma -do- . Dated 23. 1. 2001 Place: Ghaziabad. " 6. According to the Bank, this agreement is not a settlement under Section 2(t) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rules 5(1) and 2 of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1967. On 03. 02. 2001, the Board of Directors ratified the said agreement and also resolved that Registrar's concurrence was not required: RESOLUTION No.

I passed on the meeting of the Board of Directors of Bank held on 3. 2. 2001. Resolution Decision Consideration of the The Secretary, Bank read over the proceedings of proceedings of the last meeting, which last meeting. are confirmed unanimously with this decision that the norms prescribed towards the fulfillment of 40 per cent target of deposit enhancement in respect of the payment of the ex-gratia amounts vide Resolution No. 14 passed on 13. 1. 2001 and condition ofobtaining Registrar's concurrence thereto are not confirmed. Accordingly, the payment of ex-gratia amounts be made to the Bank employees. Sd/- Illegible Secretary/General Manager" 7. On 14/17. 02. 2001, Secretary wrote to the Chairman to refer to the Board ofDirectors resolutions dated 13. 01. 2001 and 3. 2. 200I to the Registrar. The Chairman failed to do so. Hence, the Secretary himself referred the matter to the Registrar under Rule 130. "A true translated copy of the order dated 7. 3.

2001 passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, U. P. Meerut Division, Meerut. ORDER Whereas "The Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. " (The Ghaziabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. ) which is called hereinafter as Bank, is a Cooperative Society registered under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act and rules. Whereas it has been decided, by the Board of Directors of the Bank, vide Resolution No. 14 dated 13. 1. 2001 and inthis continuation vide Resolution No. 1 dated 3. 2. 2001, on the demand of the Bank employees Organisation (Union), to make the payment of the exgratia amount in accordance with the prescribed norms like the previous year, whereon the Secretary, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. , Ghaziabad has vide his letter No. 18980 dated 17. 2. 2001, recommended to annul both the aforesaid Resolutions under Section 128 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1985. .. Whereas in the aforesaid context, a divisional meeting was held, ". ide Registrar's circular letter No.

C-74 dated 29. 10. 1997 and dated 22. 1. 2001, in district Ghaziabad under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Minister of Corporation in which the Registrar and other employees/higher officers as well as all the Secretaries, Distt. Cooperative Banks Ltd. of the division participated and when the Secretary Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ghaziabad sough for the directions on the aforesaid payment referred to above, the Registrar clearly directed that the payment of ex-gratia amount be not made contrary to the circular letters issued by the Department. ~ { GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. '" ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ) 1019 -1 Now, therefore, I Naval Kishore, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative A· . Societies, U. P. Meerut Division, Meerut, in exercise of powers of the Registrar conferred by the Government Order No. 3328-C/12. CA 25(1)/67 dated 24. 6. 1969, do hereby require the Chairman/Board of Directors, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ghaziabad under Section 128(1) of the U. P.

Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, to reconsider the Resolution No. 14 dated 13. 1. 2001 and Resolution No...... dated 3. 2. 2001, which are in respect of the payment of ex- \r gratia amounts to bank employees. The said exercise may please be completed within 15 days. Please . ensure the action under reference, within the ambit of the circular letter issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. Lucknow. Sd/- Naval Kishore Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, U. P. Meerut -' Division Meerut. " 8. On 25. 02. 2001, Board of Directors noted the ban on ex-gratia and 1 still decided to pay the same for 1999-2000 onwards. -· "THE GHAZIABAD DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Head Office: R-2/100, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad RESOLUTION NO. 9: passed under "other Items (I) at the Seventh Annual General Body. Meeting held on 25. 2. 2001. Resolution Decision The consideration of The Chairman of the Bank intimated that ... ,,.

the payment of the payment of the ex-gratia amount ex-gratia amount to the bank employees and officers for to the bank the year 1999-2000 has not been made employees as yet, while sanction has already and officers. been accorded by the Board of Directors to the payment of the ex-gratia amounts. The payment of ex-gratia amounts has been banned at the level of Registrar, '. Cooperative Societies. )' After deliberation, in view of the . , continuously. Enhancing position of . the +bank's profitability, this is unanimously decided that the ex-gratia payments for the year 1999-2000 be made to the bank's Employees/officers. Sd/- Illegible General Manager" ~ 9. The Secretary again wrote to the Chairman to refer BOD Resolution dated 25. 02. 2001 to the Registrar. The Chairman failed to do so. Hence, the Secretary himself referred the matter to the Registrar under Rule 130. 10. On 07. 03. 2001/19. 03.

2001, the Registrar acting under Section 128(1) referred to Secretary's letters to the Chairman under Rule 130 and granted time to the Bank to reconsider its resolutions dated 13. 01. 2001, 03. 02. 2001 and25. 02. 200I. . D 11. On 08. 05. 2001, 161 employees ofthe Union moved an application under Section 6H(l) of the U. P. I. D. Act purporting to be on the basis of y rights under the Agreement dated 23. 01. 2001. On the same day, the Deputy Labour Commissioner issued notice to the Bank. Section 6H(l) reads thus: "6H. Recovery of money due from an employer- 0) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under the provisions of sections 61 to 6R or under a settlement or award, or under an award given by an adjudicator or the State Industrial Tribunal appointed or constituted under this Act, before the ..

commencement ofthe Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment x and Miscellcrieous Provisions) Act, 1956, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State. Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it " shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same as if it were an arrear of land revenue..... " ' y " 12. An application was filed under Section 6H(l) of the Act which reads as follows:- I --- GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. "· ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 1021 To . _ The Deputy Labour Commissioner U. P. Lohiya Nagar, Ghaziabad. Dated: 8. 5. 2001 We, the undersigned applicants, are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 11,05,333 (Rupees Eleven Lacs Five thousand three hundred thirty three only) from Mis. Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. , R-21100, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad as per the settlement dated 23. 01.

2001 between the management and their workmen which was affirmed subsequently by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 03. 02. 2001. But even after making the repeated requests by the workmen through their union namely Co-operative Bank employees Association and Co-operative Bank Association have not paid one months wages (Basic pay plus Dearness Allowance) to the employees as ex-gratia for the financial year 1999-2000 so far the photocopy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors related to the aforesaid settlement dated 3. 2. 2001 are attached only to the original copy of the application for ready reference and marked respectively as Annexure 'A' & 'B'. xxxx xxxx xxxx 13. The bank filed objections before the Additional Labour Commissioner (hereinafter called 'the ALC;) referring to the ban on ex-gratia and Registrar's directions dated 07. 03. 2001and19. 03. 2001 to reconsider. On 15. 05.

2001, the ALC allowed the application under Section 6H and issued recovery certificate on the ground that the employer (Bank) has no objection. The said order reads thus: ( ''ORDER Dated 15. 5. 2001 : The parties are present. On behalf of the employers, written statement has been filed. The workman-side has to file no records. Hence the proceedings relating hearing are closed. On behalf ofthe workmen, a demand has been raised towards payment of sum of money on the basis of agreement, which has been denied by the employers. No objection about the amount of money mentioned in the application has been raised on behalf of the employers. Hence, the recovery certificate for the ordered sum of money be issued. Sci/- Illegible Endt. Bank's letter No. Mu. Ka/01-02/Prasha/l 137 dated 14. 5. 2001 has been sent by the undersigned. Sci/- Illegible 15. 5. 2001" 14. On 26. 05. 2001, Board of Directors approved ex-gratia payments again. On 30. 05. 200l, the Secretary again referred the resolution.

On 22. 06. 200l, the Registrar annulled all Board of Directors resolutions dated 13. 01. 2001, 03. 022001, 25. 02. 2001 and26. 05. 2001 in exercise ofpowers under Section 128 of the U. P. C. S. Act, which reads thus: "128.

Registrar's power to annual resolution of a co-operative society or cancel order passed by an· officer of a co-operative society in certain cases-The Registrar may- (i) annul any resolution passed by the Committee of Management, or the general body of any co-operative society; or (ii) cancel any order passed by an officer ofa co-operative society; if he is of the opinion that the resolution or the order, as the case may be, is not covered by the objects of the society, or is in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the rules or the byelaws of the society, whereupon every such resolution or order shall become void and inoperative and be deleted from the records ofthe society: Provided that, the Registrar shall, before making any order, require the Committee of Management, general body or officer of the co-operative society to reconsider the resolution, or as the case may be, the order, within such period as he may fix but which shall not be less than fifteen days, and if he deems fit may stay the operation of that resolution or the order during such period.

" ' ..... I GHAZIABAD ZITA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. ,. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ) 1023 15. It is to be noted that no appeal was filed against the Registrar's --t Order under Section 98 (l)(h) before the State Government nor any step was taken for arbitration under Section 70 and the same became final and conclusive under Section 102. 16. The Bank filed Writ Petition being No. 22573 of2001 against the order passed by the ALC dated 15. 05. 2001 which was allowed and the matter was remanded by the High Court for re-decision by the ALC in view of the fact that (a) the Bank had filed an objection and (b) the Registrar had now "· 'y passed the annulment order dated 22. 06. 2001. 17. On remand, the ALC held Registrar's annulment order was not proper and directed that ex-gratia amount be paid as per BOD's resolutions. According to the Bank, the ALC performed adjudication of disputed claims under Section 6H which provides in a legitimate case only execution of preadjudicated rights i. e.

a determined sum to be paid. Writ Petition No. 12890 of 2003 was filed by the Bank against the above order passed by the ALC dated 15. 03. 2003 was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 04. 04. 2003. {· 18. We heard Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ratnakar Das, learned senior counsel in C. A. No. 5231 of2004 and Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for RI and Ms. Indira Jaisingh, learned senior counsel ably assisted by Mr. Bharat Sangal, learned counsel for R2 to R4. LACKOFJURISDICTION: 19. Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the ALC's jurisdiction was wrongly invoked and his order dated y' 15. 03. 2002 under Section 6H of the U. P. l. D. Act was without jurisdiction, null and void. According to Mr. Sunil Gupta, the general legal principle is that, general act should yield to the subject act. Upon this general principle oflaw, the intention of the U. P.

Legislature is clear, namely, that the special enactment, U. P. CS Act, 1965 alone should apply in the matter ofemployment of cooperative societies to the exclusion of all labour laws. 20. For this proposition, Mr. Sunil Gupta relied on the following y judgments of this Court: . 1-\ \ (l) The Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. The Additional - i- t Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh & Ors. , (1969] 2 SCC 43 (paras 2,6,7) (2) R. C. Tiwari v. MP. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. , (1997] 5 SCC 125 (para 3) (3) . Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State ofBihar & Ors. , (1999] 9 SCC 620 (paras 16,17,48,49) (4) Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank & Anr. , (2000] 4 SCC 406 (paras 38- 41, 50) (5) State ofPunjab v. Labour Court, Jul/under & Ors. , (1980] l SCC 4 (paras 7-10) (6) UP. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr. , (2004] 8 SCC 402 (paras 56,87-91) The question of Section 135 21. In view of the general legal principle, Mr.

Gupta submitted that it is immaterial whether or not the Government has enforced Section 135 UPCS Act because in any case the said provision had ·been included in the Act only by way of clarification and abundant caution. 22. He further submitted that the enforcement ofthe entire intent ofthe legislature in the form of enforcement of the entire scheme and provisions of the Act having taken place, is wholly immaterial and that the clarificatory and cautionary provision of Section 135 has not been given by the Gov. ::mment and an appointed date for enforcement under Section 1(3) and that such non-appointment of date makes no difference to the legal consequences of the aforesaid general principle of law which, in any case, results in exclusion and implied repeal of the U. P. l. D. Act on first legal principles. 23. Mr. Gupta also submitted that the ingredients of Section 6H are not satisfied. According to learned senior counsel, there_ is no money due and 'r.

) no settlement in the eyes of law. Indeed, there is no adjudicated claim but only a highly disputed claim of the workmen. -~ I GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKAR1 BANK LTD. r. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN. J. J 1025 -t 24. In regard to his contention that no money is due, Mr. Gupta relied '· on Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. The Workmen & Anr. , (1974] ... :. 4 SCC 696 (paras 11 to 16) and Town Municipal Council, Athani v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli & Ors. , [ 1969] 1 SCC 873 (para 8). 25. With regard to his contention that there is no settlement in the eyes oflaw, learned senior counsel submitted that the agreement dated 23. 01. 200I between the Chairman of the Bank and the workmen is not a settlement in )- the eyes of law and is not valid or enforceable or binding on the Bank. He relied on Triveni Glass Ltd. v. State of UP, [2005] Labour and Industrial Cases 494, in support of this contention made. 26. In the alternative, Mr.

Gupta contended that ALC, in law is not competent to declare the statutory order of the Registrar under Section 128 of the Act to be not proper and thereby the same has to be disregarded. An order under Section 128 is final and binding and cannot be questioned in any Court in view of Section 102. , FINALITYCLAUSE: , 27. According to Mr. Gupta, the Registrar's directions and order dated ~ . 07. 03. 2001, 19. 03. 2001 and 22. 06. 2001 requiring the Board of Directors to ·1 reconsider its offending resolutions and finally annulling the same in exercise of his powers under Section 128 are statutory in nature and have become finally binding under Section 102 as no appeal was filed under Section 98 of the Cooperative Societies Act. ={ 28. Mr. Gupta then made further submissions with regard to Section _j 128, Rules 130 and 131.

According to the learned senior counsel the ALC and the High Court wrongly treat the Secretary's functions and procedure ~, "' under Rule 130 as substituting rather than merely supplementing the Chainnan's power and procedure, including suo motu power and procedure under Section 128 of the Act, read with Rule 131. It was further submitted that the Secretary as well as the Registrar fully complied with the procedure under Sections 128 and 130. Res Judicata: - 'r 29. Mr. Gupta submitted that the High Court had by its earlier judgment dated 04. 07. 2002 already directed the ALC to reconsider the matter keeping J_ I 4in view the Registrar's order under Section 128. No objection to the propriety or illegality of that order was taken by the workmen at that time, therefore, i= he submitted that the workman are thereafter barred by res judicata from doing so. CA. No. 5231 o/2004 30. This appeal was filed by the State of U. P.

through its Secretary, ~ Department of Cooperative Civil Secretariat, Lucknow against the final ~ ""' judgment and order dated 04. 04. 2003 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 12890 of 2003 whereby the High Court has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the Bank. • 31. According to Mr. Ratnakar Das, learned senior counsel the consequences of the dismissal of the writ petition is that the High Court has virtually affirmed the order dated 15. 03. 2003 passed by the ALC. By the said order, the ALC allowed the payment of 11, 10,398 as ex gratia payment to the employees of the Cooperative Bank for the year 1999-2000 from the public fund. ~·" ,t= . ~- ,~- 32. Learned senior counsel for the State - Mr. Ratnakar Das majorly radopted the arguments of Mr. Sunil Gupta and submitted that the States ;, argument is in tune with the banks case. He invited our attention to Rules • 37, 40, 42, and 98 and also Sections 64 and 65 of the U. P. Cooperative r- Societies Act. r 33.

He also submitted that no ex gratia payment is being made by any other bank. t= f ':v 34. Ms. Indira Jaisingh, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents t 2-4, submitted as follows before us. ,/-' UP Cooperative Societies Act t- ~ 35. It was submitted by learned senior counsel that, The U. P. Cooperative ~·- Societies Act, 1965 has· been enacted to further the Cooperative movement in the State of U. P. and for providing for functions and responsibilities of -f ~) Cooperative Societies and the authorities invested with their supervision, \ guidance and control. Thus the objects and reasons for the enactment of )- ~- ·:f-1' J I GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARJ BANK LTD. 1•. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J.

] 1027 -t the said Act is not to regulate the service conditions of the employees of the cooperative societies and the Act only incidentally provides Sections 121 & 122 to regulate the terms and conditions of all employees of the Cooperative Societies, Officers, Supervisors and other employees. It was submitted that only those employees who are not covered by the provisions of the U. P. I. D. Act would fall within the ambit of Sections 121-122 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. On the other hand, the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been held to be a special statute in matters of ) settlement of Industrial disputes arising out of the terms and conditions of service of employees who fall within the definition of workmen, provided they are employed in establishments covered by the said Act. In regard to various establishments which have their own services rules, the U. P. I. D. Act will still apply to workmen employed therein.

Learned senior counsel cited various decisions of this court in the case of UP. State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Hari Shankar Jain & Ors.. [1978] 4 SCC 16, Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. D. J. Bahadur & Ors. , [1981] 1 SCC 315, Allahabad District Cooperative Ltd. v. Hanuman Dutt Tiwari, [1981] 4 SCC 431 and The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & l , Ors. , [1976] I SCC 496 in support of this contention. -. 36. It was then subm~tted that the U. P. l. D. Act is a special statute dealing with Industrial Disputes and therefore will exclude the application of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act which is a general statute. • UP. Cooperative Societies Act vis UP. I. D. Act 37. It was submitted that it has been placed beyond any doubt that the U. P.

Cooperative Societies Act is an Act dealing with Cooperative Societies ; and not industrial disputes and the provisions therein are themselves unambiguous about the applicability of the various Labour Laws including U. P. l. D. Act. (i) Section 135 of the Act is as under: "135. Certain Acts not . to apply to co-operative societies - The provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV Y" of 1947) and the U. P. Industrial Dispsutes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act XVIII • of 1947) shall not apply to Cooperative Societies. " (ii) Regulation 103 of the U. P. Cooperative societies Employees Regulation,1975 is as under: "103. The provisions of these Regulations to the extent of their inconsistency, with any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, U. P.

Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Adhiniyam, 1962, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and any other labour laws for the time being in force, if applicable to any co-operative society or class of co-operative societies, shall be deemed to inoperative. " 38. In the above Act, Section 70 provides for disputes which can be referred to Arbitration of the Registrar. Clause (1) thereof provides that Section 70 applies to "any dispute relating to the Constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society. " Clause (2) thereof provides for including in the above disputes any "claims for amounts due" but this is also for the purposes ofsub-Section (I) and therefore would have to be read along with clause (1). This Court has specifically held that disputes arising out of terms and conditions of employment of the Society's employees do not fall within the phrase "any dispute relating to the Constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society.

" Thus Registrar cannot decide such disputes regarding terms and conditions of employment. A number of decisions of this court were cited on this point by learned senior counsel, Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Mis Dalichand Jugraj Jan & Ors. , [1969] 1 SCR 887, Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. &Ors. v. The Addi. Industrial Tribunal, A. P. & Ors. , [1969] 2 SCC 43, Allahabad District Cooperative Ltd v. Hanuman Dutt Tiwari, [1981] 4 SCC 431 and Marinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Marinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Workers Union, JT (2006) 6 SC 374. 39. Learned senior counsel submitted that Section 128 also does not assist the Appellant in this regard. The said section clearly provides that the powers of the Registrar to annul any resolution only applies if the said resolution "is not covered by the objects of the society or is in contravention .

G of the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the bye-laws of the society" as held by this Court terms and conditions of service of employment do not fall within the expression "objects ~fthe society". The said Section 128 does not grant powers to the 'Registrar to annul such resolutions if deemed ---r· contrary to the "Regulations", which are excluded by their explicit absence from Section 128. Hence, the Registrar has no power to annul resolution GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. 1·. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 1029 dealing with the terms and conditions of employment of the employees of the Society. In any event there is nothing in the resolutions contrary to the regulation. 40. This is further strengthened by Rule 130(2) which provides that if the Resolution is not covered by Section 128 then it becomes operative immediately. Application of Labour Laws 41. The learned senior counsel submitted that the legislature has specifically provided in the provisions ofthe U. P.

Cooperative Societies Act itself that the Labour Laws will apply to the employees of the cooperative societies, in Regulation 103 and in non-enforcement of Section 135. The fact that Section 135 has not been brought into force indicates clearly that (a) in order to exclude Labour laws there must be statutory exclusion (b) failing such an exclusion Labour Law will apply. In this case, there is a fact an exclusion however under Section 135 has not been brought into force. > 42. Regulation l03 specifically provides that any provision of 1975 ' Regulations which is inconsistent with any of the Labour Laws shall be deemed inoperative to the extent of such inconsistency. 43. Regulation 42 of 1975 provides that a cooperative society, subject to the provisions of the Regulations and general or special orders of the Registrar give other allowances to its employees, but this does not require any permission or approval from the Registrar, unlike other provisions of Regulations 37, 40, 41 etc.

44. However, ifthe said Regulation 42 read with Orders ofthe Registrar { comes in conflict with the enforcement of a settlement between the Cooperative Bank and its employees under the provisions of the U. P. I. D. Act, then in terms of Regulation l03, the said Regulation 42 along with the concerned orders of the Registrar would be inoperative. The decision in the case of Mathura Zita Sahakari Bank Ltd. 1999 All. L. J. 628, was referred to in this regard. 45. These Regulations also make it clear that under all circumstances industrial relations are governed by the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and not by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. 46. It was submitted that the Orders of the Registrar in any case have been admitted by the Registrar himself not to be binding on the Cooperative societies but being merely advisory. Thus the above orders of the Registrar would not come in the way ofenforcement ofthe settlement dated 23. 1. 2001 under Section 6-B. Implied Repeal 47.

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the argument ·( of the appellants is based on implied repeal of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. According to the learned counsel, when the statutes themselves are very clear on the question of applicability, the question of implied repeal does not arise. In this case, the existence ofbut not having been enforced, Section 135 in the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act makes it clear that Labour Laws apply unless specifically excluded by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. Hence the argument of implied repeal is misplaced. A reading of Regulation 103 also makes it clear that Labour Laws will prevail over the Regulations framed under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. In this case, the intention of the legislature is .. , ' clearly expressed in Section 135 i. e. unless excluded by statutes the Labour Laws will apply.

The Section actually exclude the application ofLabour Laws but the legislation actually has not brought it into force. 48. In any event, there is a presumption against a repeal by implication; and the reason of this Rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a law has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject matter, and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation. The doctrine of implied repeal is based on the theory that the Legislature, which is presumed to know the existing law, did not intend to create any confusion by retaining conflicting provisions and, therefore, when the Court applies the doctrine, it does not more than give effect to the intention of the Legislature by examining the scope and the· object of the two enactments and by a comparison of their provisions. This principle was made clear by this court in the case of Municipal Council Palai v. T. J.

Joseph & Ors. , [1964] 2 SCR 87. { 49. The presumption is, however, rebutted and repeal is inferred by necessary implication when the provisions ofthe later Act are so inconsistent GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. 1·. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 1031 -~ with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act "that the two cannot stand together". But, ifthe two may be read together and some application may be made of the words in the earlier Act, repeal will not be inferred. In this context learned senior counsel referred to the decisions of this court in the case of R. S. Raghunath v. State ofKarnataka & Anr. , [1992) 1 SCC 335 and Municipal Council Palai (supra). SO. It was submitted that the U. P. I. D. Act and the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act are not inconsistent and hence there is no question of implied repeal.

If the later statute by itself provides that the earlier statute will still be applicable then no reference is required to be made to be General Principle of Implied Repeal which is applicable only when the statute does not so provide and further when there is a conflict between the provisions of the two statutes. Settlement t , 51. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the settlement dated 23. 1. 200I is fully capable of enforcement under Section 6-H of the U. P. l. D. Act as it falls squarely within the definition of Sections 2(t) and 6-B. The said settlement has been arrived at outside the Conciliation Proceedings and has been signed by the Chairman who under Section 30 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act is responsible for the control, supervision and guidance of the affairs and business of the Society. Section 31 does not bar the Chairman from signing the settlement though it grants certain powers to the Secretary of the Society. 52.

Under Section 6-B, the Settlement arrived at outside the Conciliation Proceedings is binding on the parties to it but need not be registered under Section 6-B. The registration of such a settlement is optional. Thus the present settlement cannot be said to be 'not a settlement' as alleged. 53. The present appeal has arisen out of proceedings under the U. P. I. D. Act and not the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. The Union on behalf of 167 workmen and for enforcing a right to receive ex gratia payment, whose r payment has, admittedly continued for more than 23 years and agreed to by the Bank in tenns ofthe settlement dated 23. 1. 2001 filed an application under i- -Section 6~H which provides that where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement, the workman may make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the . money due to him. 54.

The present dispute is not "any dispute relating to the Constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society" and, therefore, the machinery provided in Section 70 or 128 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act would not be available to the employees of the Bank to enforce the settlement. 55. The employees are constrained to approach the Additional Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H(l) of the Act to enforce the payment. It is the Bank which has sought to introduce the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act in 6-H proceedings and not the ALC or the employees as alleged. 56. It is also noteworthy that the respondents are seeking to enforce the settlement and nqt any resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank and the Registrar Cooperative Societies, UP does not have any power to annul the settlement even under Regulation 42 of the 1975 Regulations.

It was, therefore, submitted that even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments, without admitting, that the Registrar had the power under Section 128 to annul a Resolution of the Board of Directors relating to the terms and conditions of service of the employees, even on such annulment, the employees would be entitled to enforce the terms of the settlement, notwithstanding such annulment as the Resolutions ofthe Board of Directors are not the subject matter of the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 57. With regard to Res Judicata it was argued that, the Additional Labour Commissioner had allowed the application under Section 6-H(I) of the respondents on 15. 5. 2001. The Registrar thereafter by his order dated 22. 6. 2001 during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 22537 of 2001 of the Bank challenging the said order of the ALC, annulled the Resolutions ofthe Board of Directors_ Therefore, the order dated 22. 6.

2001 was not before the ALC at the time of issuance of his order dated 15. 5. 2001. It was for this reason the High Court by its judgment dated 4. 7. 2002 had merely directed the Additional Labour Commissioner to reconsider its decision dated 15. 5. 200I "i11 view of this annulment of the Resolution of the Board of Directors". GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. r. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN. J. ] l033 Thus there is no question of any res judicata in regard to the order dated 22. 6. 2001 of the Registrar and the ALC was fully competent to reject the operation of the said order on the proceedings before it. 58. We have heard all the parties in detail and have carefully perused through all records placed before us. In our opinion, the arguments of the appellants deserve favourable consideration for the reasons stated infra. 59. The general legal principle in interpretation of statutes is that 'the general Act should lead to the special Act'.

Upon this general principle of law, the intention of the U. P legislature is clear, that the special enactment UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 alone should apply in the matter of employment of Co-operative Societies to the exclusion of all other Labour Laws. It is a complete code in itself as regards employment in co-operative societies and its machinery and provisions. The general Act the UPID Act, 1947 as a whole has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the UPCS Act. This is also clear from necessary implication that the legislature could not have intended 'head-on-conflict and collision' between authorities under different Acts. In this regard reference can be made to decisions of this court in the case of The Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors. v.

The Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh & Ors, [1969] 2 SCC 43 where this court observed that: Applying these tests, we have no doubt at all that the dispute covered by the first issue referred to the Industrial Tribunal in the present cases could not possibly be referred for decision to the Registrar under Section 61 of the Act. The dispute related to alteration of a number of conditions of service of the workmen - r which relief could only be granted by an Industrial Tribunal dealing with an industrial dispute. The Registrar, it is clear from the provisions of the Act, could not possibly have granted the reliefs claimed under this issue because of the limitations placed on his powers in the Act itself.

It is true that Section 61 by itself does not contain any clear indication that the Registrar cannot entertain a dispute relating to alteration of conditions of service of the employees of a registered society; but the meaning given to the expression "touching the business of the society", in our opinion, makes it very doubtful whether a dispute in respect of alteration of conditions of service can be held to be covered by this expression.

Since the word "business" is equated with the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society, and since it has been held that it would be difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects, such as laying down the conditions of service of its employees, can be said to be a part of its business, it would appear that a dispute relating to conditions of service of the workmen employed by the society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the society. Further, the position is clarified by the provisions of Subsection (4) of Section 62 of the Act which limit the power to be exercised by the Registrar, when dealing with a dispute referred to him under Section 61, by a mandate that he shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and bye-laws.

On the face of it, the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-Jaws could not possibly permit the Registrar to change conditions of service of the workmen employed by the society. For the purpose of bringing facts to our notice in the present appeals, the Rules framed by the Andhra Pradesh Government under the Act, and the bye-Jaws of one of the appellant Banks have been placed on the Paper-books ofthe appeals before us. It appears from them that the conditions of service of the employees of the Bank have all been laid down by framing special bye-laws. Most of the conditions ofservice, which the workmen want to be altered to their benefit, have thus been laid down by the bye-laws, so that any alteration in those conditions of service will necessarily require a change in the bye-laws.

Such a change could not possibly be directed by the Registrar when, under Section 62(4) of the Act, he is specifically required to decide the dispute referred to him in accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws. It may also be noticed that a dispute referred to the Registrar under Section 61 of the Act can even be transferred for disposal to a person who may have been invested by the Government with powers in that behalf, or may be referred for disposal to an arbitrator by the Registrar. Such person or arbitrator, when deciding the dispute, will also be governed by the mandate in Section 62(4) of the Act, so that he will also be bound to reject the claim of the workmen which is nothing else than a request for alteration of conditions of service ). _ GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. '" ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ) 1035 -r contained in the bye-laws.

It is thus clear that, in respect of the dispute relating to alteration of various conditions of service, the Registrar or other person dealing with it under Section 62 ofthe Act is not competent to grant the relief claimed by the workmen at all. On the principle laid down by this Court in the case of the Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd, therefore, it must be held that this dispute is not a dispute covered by the provisions of Section 61 of the Act. Such a dispute is not contemplated to be dealt with ~ ) This case was followed in giving to the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) overriding effect over the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The RDB Act constitutes a tribunal and by sections 17 and 18 confers upon the tribunal exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts (defined to mean any liability which is claimed as due).

The Act also lays down the procedure for recovery of the debt as per the certificate issued by the tribunal. The provisions of the RDB Act, which is a special Act, were held to prevail over sections 442, 446, 537 and other sections of the Companies Act which is a general Act, more so because Section 34 of the RDB Act gives over riding effect to that Act by providing that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. 64. We are therefore of the view that the Asst. Labour Commissioner (ALC)'s jurisdiction was wrongly invoked and his order dated 15. 03. 2003 under section 6H, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is without jurisdiction and hence null and void and it can be observed that, in view of the said general legal principle, it is immaterial whether or not the government has I enforced section 135 (UPCS Act) because, in any case the said provision (S.

135) had been included in the Act only by way of clarification and abundant caution. 65. In the alternative if we are to presume that the ingredients of S. 6H are not satisfied then also there is no adjudicated claim but only a highly disputed claim of the workman. In this connection, one can refer to the decision of this court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. The Workmen and Another (supra) wherein this court opined that: "11. The only question which arises for determination in this Court is whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjud_icate on the issues referred to it under Section 33(C)(2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act.

Sub-section (2), which is pait of Section 33C dealing with "the recovery of money due from an employer" reads as follows: (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government. 12. It is now well-settled that a proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) is a proceeding, generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer, or if the workman is entitled to any beuefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the Labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money.

This calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit, in view of its being previously adjudged, or, otherwise, duly provided for. In ChiefMining Engineer, East India · Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameswar and Ors. it was reiterated that proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) are analogous to execution proceedings and the Labour Court called Upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by workmen is in such cases in the position of an executing court. It was also reiterated that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing ~-· one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of a:nd in relation to the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer. 13.

In a suit, a claim for relief made by the plaintiff against the defendant involves an investigation directed to the determination of (i) the plaintiffs right to relief; (ii) the corresponding liability of the defendant, including, whether the defendant is, at all, liable or· not; and (iii) the extent of the defendants liability, if any. The Working out of such liability with a view to give relief is generally ~ GHAZlARAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTJ'J. '" ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J. J 1039 I -r regarded as the function of an execution proceeding. Determination . No. (iii) referred to above, that is to say, the extent ofthe defendant's liability may sometimes be left over for determination in execution proceedings. But that is not the case with the determinations under heads (i) and (ii). They are normally regarded as the functions of a suit and not an execution proceeding.

Since a proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) is in the nature of an execution proceeding it ; should follow that an investigation of the nature of determinations ): (i) and (ii) above is, normally, outside its scope. It is true that in a proceeding under Section 33(C)(2), as in an execution proceeding, it may be necessary to determine the identity of the person by whom or against whom the claim is made if there is a challenge on that score. But that is merely 'Incidental'. To call determinations (i) and (ii) 'Incidental' to an execution proceeding would be a perversion, -, because execution proceedings in which the extent of liability is worked out are just consequential upon the determinations (i) and (ii) and represent the last stage in a process leading to final relief. Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under ) Section 33(C)(2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function.

It cannot arrogate to itself the funGtions-say of an Indt•strial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as 'Incidental' to its main business of computation. In such cases determinations (i) and (ii) are not 'Incidental' to the computation. The computation itself is consequential upon and subsidiary to determinations (i) and (ii) as the last stage in the process which commenced with a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. ~ It was, therefore, held in State Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur v. R. L. Khandelwal, that a workman cannot put forward a claim in an application under Section 33(C)(2) in respect of a matter which is not based on an existing right and which can be appropriately the subject-matter of an industrial dispute which requires a reference under Section 10 of the Act. 14. The scope of Section 33(C)(2) was illustrated by this Court in .....

, The Central Bank ofIndia Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan Etc.. Under the Shastri Award, Bank clerks operating the adding machine were declared to be entitled to a special allowance of Rs. 10 per month. ·~ i- ; Four clerks made a claim for computation before the Labour Coun. .. The Bank denied the claim that the clerks came within the category referred to in the award and further contended that the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) had no jurisdiction to determine whether the clerks came within that category or not. Rejecting the contention, this Court held that the enquiry as to whether the 4 , ' clerks came within that category was purely 'incidental' and necessary to enable the Labour Court to give the relief asked for ~ and, therefore, the Court had jurisdiction to enquire whether the --- - I as the Circulars issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. and the Additional Registrar (Banking), Cooperative Societies U. P.

and the only forum for adjudication for sake of arguments and without admitting that the matter ought to have been referred to the Labour Court for adjudicating the aforesaid matter, and that too, if the Industrial Laws are made applicable to the provisions of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. 78. In our opinion, the impugned judgment suffers from complete non- 'f -'. application of mind on the merits of the case in as much as whole pleadings even before the Labour Commissioner or before the High Court was that the GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. "· ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ) 1051 -~ payment of ex-gratia to the employees are against the objects of the society and it is in contravention of Regulation 42 of the Service Regulations, 1975 and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1965 and contrary to the provisions of the Rules 1968, Government orders/circulars of Ld.

Registrar and other laws applicable, the Chairman of the bank suo motu, without there being any power or legal authority unilaterally entered into a private settlement with the employees of the bank on 23. 1. 2001. It is relevant to mention here that to avoid such a situation of illegal agreements by the • -y Chairman who is an elected representative and to protect misuse of public fund by the employees amongst themselves, the cooperative Act Rules and Regulations framed thereunder requires prior permission ofthe Registrar Cooperative Societies for grant of any pecuniary benefits because Regulation 42 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975 provides that any allowance or pecuniary benefits to employees shall be given only by the special order of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, U. P. which order was missing throughout. 79.

The present dispute does not relate to said Act, 1947 but it is related to the provisions contained under the Societies Act, 1965 as well as where a circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and more specifically Regulation 42 of Service Rules, 1975. Therefore, in our opinion, the private settlement made on 21. 03. 2001 does not fall under 6-H(I) of the U. P. Act, 1947. In other words, the payment of ex-gratia is an incentive for an employee for his good work. Therefore, it is governed by Regulation 42 (2) that any cooperative society may also grant pecuniary incentive only with the prior permission of the Registrar to any employee or a class of employees for outstanding performance. It clearly provides that for payment ofex-gratia, permission of the Registrar is must. Regulation 42 is itself very -. / clear and is not in conflict with any of the provisions of the U. P. Act, 1947.

The respondents themselves admitted in their counter affidavit that the settlement was not entered into during conciliation proceeding. Therefore, the said private settlement could not have been legally enforced being an invalid settlement. No private settlement can give a legal enforceable right. It is wrong to suggest that payment of ex-gratia amount to the employees over and above their salary is the matter ofU. P. Act, 1947. It is very clear and there is special provision in Rule 42 to the Service Rules, 1975. The -1 cooperative society is a State Government subject and every State Government has right to make laws in their respective States and there are different cooperative societies acts in different States. 1-,_ 80. It was argued by senior counsel for the respondents that ex-gratia is being paid for several years and therefore the ex-gratia payment should be continued.

Records placed before us reveal that ex-gratia payment was conditionally paid upto 1999-2000 and in every resolution, the Board of Directors has been clearly mentioning that ifthere is any objection from the Department, audit etc. , the amount of ex-gratia will be recovered from the employees. In the audit reports for several years, the auditors as well as the department have objected for such payments. We make it clear that the y- "' payments which have already been made even though there is audit objection need not be recovered from the employees. We make it clear that the employees will not be entitled for any ex-gratia payment from now onwards. 81. Alongwith the appeal, some appointment orders have been filed as annexures~ The appointment order clearly says that the services were governed by the Service Regulations, 1975 and the bye-laws of the bank.

It is relevant to mention here that the services of the employees of the Bank are governed by service regulations 1975 framed under the Act of 1965, ... which provides complete machinery and adjudication. Moreover, the ~ provisions under Section 70 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is elaborate in this regard, which provides complete machinery that if there is • any dispute between the employers and the employees of the Cooperative Society, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitrator as provided under Section 70 ofthe U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Section 70 ofthe U. P. Cooperative Societies Act and Section 64 of the M. P. Cooperative Societies Act are pari materia and this Court in the matter ofRC. Tewari v. MP. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.

, [1997] 5 SCC 125 held that Labour Court and Industrial Laws are not applicable where complete machinery has been provided under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act and x in such view ofthe matter the Ld. Additional Labour Commissioner U. P. has no jurisdiction to pass orders in the nature it has been passed. 82. The relevant legal provisions requiring consideration of this Court are quoted below: "Section 70. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force: if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business ofa co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises- GHAZIABAD ZIT. A SAHAKARI BANK LTD. '" ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J.

J 1053 -~ (a) among members, past members and person claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or (b) between a member, past member or any person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member, and the society, its committee of management or any officer, agent or employee of the society, including any past officer, agent or employee; or r -.. ,, (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society; or )00( )000( )000( [Provided that a dispute relating to an election under the provisions t of this Act or rules made thereunder shall not be referred to the } Registrar until after the declaration of the result of such election. ] 4.

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (I), the following shall be deemed to be included in dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely- (a) claims for amounts due when a demand for payment is made and is either refused or not complied with whether such claims are admitted or not by the opposite party; ·~,,.

(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor or whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, ~-, officer, agent, or employee including past or deceased member, officer, agent, or employee, whether individually or collectively and whether such loss be admitted or not; and (d) all matters relating to the objects of the society mentioned in the bye-laws as also those relating to the election of office-bearers. (3) Ifany question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute relating to the constitution, managem(;! nt or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the :!. legistrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. Section 71.

Reference of dispute to arbitration. - On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 70, the Registrar may, subject to the provisions of the rules, if any- (a) decide the dispute himself, or (b) refer it for decision to an arbitrator appointed by him, or (c) refer it, if the parties so request in writing, for decision to a ... ~ board of arbitrators consisting of the three persons to be appointed b in the prescribed manner. (2) The Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded, withdraw any reference made under clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) and refer it to another arbitrator or board of arbitrators or decide it himself. (3) The Registrar, the arbitrator or the board ofarbitrators, to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this section may, pending the decision ofthe dispute make such interlocutory orders including ,Xy attachment of property as he or they may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

(4) The decision given by the Registrar, the arbitrator or the board of arbitrators under this section shall hereinafter be termed as award. (5) The procedure to be followed by the Registrar, the arbitrator or the'board of arbitrators in deciding a dispute and making an award under this section shall be as may be prescribed. " GHAZIABAD ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. 1-. ADDL. LABOUR COMMR. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 1055 83. Since payment of ex-gratia amount of the employees of the bank is a policy matter, the State Government of U. P. has filed Special Leave Petition before this Court questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the High Court for the leave of this Court.

The impugned judgment o\: the High Court suffers from the error of complete non-application of mind on the merits of the case in as much as whole pleadings either before the Commissioner and before the High Court was that the payment of ex-gratia to the employees are against the objects of the society and it is in contravention of the provisions of the U. P. Act, 1947, rules and regulations, we have no other option to set aside the same and allow both the appeals filed by the bank as. well as the State of U. P. as already indicated in the paragraphs above. The payments already made need not be recovered at this distance of time from the emp