SMT. K. A. ANNAMMA versus THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL SOCIETY LTD.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 12-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
287
287
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 287
SMT. K. A. ANNAMMA
v.
THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL
SOCIETY LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 197 of  2018)
JANUARY 12, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Service dispute – Jurisdiction
of the labour court – On facts, service dispute between a
co-operative society’s employee and the employer-Co-operative
Society – Jurisdiction of the labour court under the Act – Held: The
KCS Act and the ID Act both possess and enjoy the concurrent
jurisdiction to decide any service dispute arising between the
Co-operative Society’s Employee and his/her employer-Co-operative
Society – It is the choice of the employee concerned to choose any
one forum out of the two forums available to him/her under the
KCS Act and ID Act, to get his/her service dispute decided – If the
employee desires to invoke the jurisdiction of the labour court under
the ID Act, employee has to satisfying the test laid down under the
ID Act that the employee concerned is a “workman”, the dispute
raised by him/her is an “industrial dispute” and the Co-operative
Society-employer is an “Industry” as defined under the ID Act – In
the instant case, labour court was competent to decide the service
dispute raised by the employee under the ID Act – Kerala
Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 – s.69.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 both possess and enjoy the
concurrent jurisdiction to decide any service dispute arising
between the Co-operative Society’s Employee and his/her
Employer-Co-operative Society. It is the choice of the Employee
concerned to choose any one forum out of the two forums available
to him/her under the two Acts-the KCS Act and the I.D. Act, to
get his/her service dispute decided. It is, however, subject to
satisfying the test laid down under the ID Act that the employee
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
concerned is a “workman”, the dispute raised by him/her is an
“industrial dispute” and the Co-operative Society-Employer is
an “Industry” as defined under the ID Act. The Labour Court in
the instant case was competent to decide the service dispute
raised by the Employee-appellant under the ID Act. The case is
remanded to the writ court to decide the respondent’s writ petition
for examining the legality and correctness of the award of the
Labour Court on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 103, 104
and 106][319-E-G; 320-A]
2. The majority view of three Judges in **Chirayinkeezhu
Services Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Santosh 2015 (4) KLT 163 (LB)
held that the service dispute arising between the Co-operative
Society’s Employee and the Employer (Co-operative Society) is
triable only by the forum prescribed under the KCS Act, 1969
and the jurisdiction of the ID Act is excluded and barred to try
such service dispute. Where as the minority view of two Judges
concerned, it held that such service dispute is triable under both
the Acts, i.e., the KCS Act and the ID Act. In other words, it held
that both the Acts possess and enjoy concurrent jurisdiction to
decide such service dispute and it is for the aggrieved person to
choose the forum of his/her choice out of the two Acts to get the
service dispute settled subject to proving the ingredients of the
definition of “Workman”, “Industrial Dispute” and the
cooperative Society to be the “Industry” as defined under the
ID Act, if he/she desires to invoke the jurisdiction of the ID Act
for deciding the service dispute.[Paras 20-21][297-D-F]
3.1 The ratio of *Dharappa’s case is that firstly, Section 70
of the Karnataka CS Act as it originally stood and amended by
first Amendment Act 19 of 1976 adding therein two clauses (d)
and (e) to Section 70, whether one reads it independently or/and
in juxtaposition with other Sections would find that it did not
provide for express ouster or exclusion of the jurisdiction of the
Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under the ID Act. In other
words, it did not create any express bar for the Labour Court/
Industrial Tribunal from deciding the service disputes arising
between a Cooperative Society’s Employee and his/her Employer
(Co-operative Society). [Paras 72-73] [314-E-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
3.2 Second, any Co-operative Society’s Employee satisfying
the definition of the expression “Workman”, “Industrial Dispute”
and the Co-operative Society to be an “Industry” as defined under
the ID 

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