LexPRABHU DAYAL versus SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI MUJURI VIKAS KHAND PANIYARA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 617 ..... PRABHU DAYAL A v. SADHAN SAHKARI SAMIT! MUJURI VIKAS KHANO PANIYARA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6227 of 2004) FEBRUARY 27, 2008 B ,,. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Labour laws - Termination, of employees of co-operative c Society - Labour Authorities issuing recovery order on basis of compromise award - Challenge to - Held: Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as a/so Payment of Wages Act, 1963 do not apply to the services of the employees of the registered co-operative society- Therefore, view of High Court D justified - However, order of High Court setting aside the award j. "" made on the basis of settlement between the parties, set aside - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Payment of Wages Act, 1963. Appellant was appointed with the respondent-society E which had four employees. Appellant challenged his termination. Reference was made to the Labour Court. The parties entered into a settlement and the appellant ;._ was awarded certain amount subject to the condition that he would withdraw all applications and proceedings made F before various authorities under the labour laws. Appellant was paid the amount but he did not withdraw the matters. Respondent-society filed writ petition on the ground that the Payment of Wages Act, 1963 and the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not apply to the G respondent-society. The writ petition was allowed and the award dated 9.12.1988 made on the basis of a settlement ~ arrived at between the parties was set aside. Hence the .. present appeal. 617 H 618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. .... A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply to employees of the co-operative society. The notification dated 30.6.1988 issued under sub-section 8 (2) of Section 26 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 makes the position clear that provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1963 are not applicable to the service of workman employed under the societies which are registered with .. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The salaries and c conveyance etc. paid by the registrar of the co-operative societies are also reviewed from time to time. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view. But the award was made on the basis of a settlement between the parties. That being so, the High Court ought not to have set aside the award. The part of the impugned order relating D to award dated 9.12.1988 is set aside. (Paras 4 and 6) [620-C, D, F, G] ,,,. " Himanshu Kumar Vidyardhi and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1997 (4) SCC 391; R. C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Cooperative E Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2652 - relied on. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6227 of 2004. F From the Judgment and Order dated 25. 7 .2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad U.P., C.M.W.P. No. 30939/ 1990. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal and Anoop Kumar Srivastava for the Appellant. G Praveen Swarup for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ..... Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to ; the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High H Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondents • Sadhan PRABHU DAYAL v. SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI MUJURI 619 VIKAS KHANO PANIYARA & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] ...... ' - Sahkari Samiti Mujuri Vikas Khand Paniyara (hereinafter A " ~ referred to as the 'Cooperative society'). Challenge in this appeal was to the recovery order issued by the labour authorities on the basis of a compromise award. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: B Appellant was appointed as Salesman in the respondent~ _. society which had four employees, as such the labour laws were not applicable to it. But the appellant filed cases under the Payment of Wages Act, 1963 (in short the 'Act') which were allowed and the society was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,830/ c -. In pursuance of the direction in terms of Section 15 of the Act, the amount was paid to the appellant in March, 1988. He again filed an application under Section 6-H of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'U.P. Act') making a grievance that he was being paid less than minimum wages D payable under the Act. The said claim was also decided ex- ... ~ parte. Thereafter he claimed that he had been terminated. He m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.