DHARAPPA versus BIJAPUR CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 26-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DHARAPPA 
A 
v. 
BIJAPUR CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD. 
APRIL 26, 2007 
[G.P. MA TIIURAND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987: s. 10(4A). C 
Industrial disputes-Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal-
Jurisdiction-Industrial disputes between cooperative society and its 
workmen-Workman of cooperative society claimed that he was employed as 
a dailywage labourer in the Rural Dairy Centre-He had worked continuously 
and uninterruptedly till his services were illegally terminated w.e.f 1.3.1980- D 
The workman did not challenge his termination-Section 10(4A) was inserted 
by amendment in the State to the Industrial Disputes Act wherein it was 
provided that any workman might approach the Labour Court within six 
months to challenge the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or 
termination-Taking advantage of the new provision, on 4.10.1988, the E 
workman made an application to the Labour Court seeking a declaration 
that his termination from service on 1.3.1980 was null and void and a 
direction for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and 
other consequential benefits-Labour Court accepted the claim of the 
workman and held that he had worked for more than 240 days and termination 
of his service without complying with Section 25F of the ID Act amounted F 
to illegal retrenchment and directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages 
in addition to continuity of service-Cooperative society filed a writ petition-
During the pendency of the writ petition, in another case, Full Bench of the 
High Court held that the ID Act was inapplicable to a dispute raised by a 
workman of the cooperative society-Following this decision, a Single Judge G 
allowed the writ petition-On appeal, a Division Bench held that an employee 
of a cooperative society having a claim against the employer had to raise 
a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies 
(Amendment) Act, 1976-Correctness of-Held: The jurisdiction to decide an 
729 
H 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A industrial dispute vested thus: (i) Exclusively with labour Courts and 
industrial Tribunals Ii// 20.1.1976; (ii) Concurrenlly wilh Labour Courts/ 
Industrial Tribunals under ID Act and with Registrar under section 70 of the 
KCS Act between 20.1./976 and 20.6.2000; and (iii) Exclusively with the 
Registrar under sec/ion 70 of the KCS Act with effect from 20.6.2000-Hence, 
B lhe award of !he Labour Court was no/ without jurisdiction-Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, S. 10-Karnataka Cooperative Socieities Act, 1959-
Karnataka Cooperative Socieities (Amendment) Act, 1976, S. 70. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
C 
Article 254-laws made by Parliament and laws made by State 
legislatures-Inconsistency or repugnancy between-Resolution of-Held: 
Repugnancy is said lo arise when: (i) there is a clear and direct inconsistency 
between the Central and the State Act; (ii) such inconsistency is 
irreconcilable, or brings the Stale Act in direct collision with the Central Act 
or brings about a situation where obeying one would lead to disobeying the 
D other-In such a case the repugnant provision of the State law would be 
void. 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
limitation-Statutes relating to-Rules of interpretation-Held: The 
legislative intent should be ascertained by keeping in view the position 
before the amendment, !he nature of remedy provided, and the need lherefor-
It is also necessary to keep in view the general principles relating to 
limitation-Statutes relating to limitation are said to be retrospective in 
nature in the sense that they apply to all proceedings brought after they 
F come mto force, even for enforcing causes of action which had accrued prior 
to the date when such statute came into force-But they are also prospective 
in the sense that they do not have the effect of reviving a right of action which 
was already barred on the date of its coming into operation. 
G 
Words & Phrases: 
"Repugnancy"-Meaning of-In the context of Article 254 of the 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
The appellant claimed that he was employed as a daily-wage labourer in 
H the Rural Dairy Centre and that he had worked continuously and 
f . 
DHARAPPA •·. BIJAPUR CO-OP MIL1' PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD 
731 
,. 
uninterruptedly till his services were illegally terminated with effect from A 
1.3.1980. The appellant did not challenge his termination. 
Section 10(4A)

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.