PRABHU DAYALversusSADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI MUJURI VIKAS KHAND PANIYARA & ORS.

                                    [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
  (2) of Section 26 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 makes
8 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
  conveyance etc. paid by the registrar of the co-operative
c 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
    Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2652 - relied
E on.

         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6227
    of 2004.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 25. 7.2003 of the High
F   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/
               -. In pursuance of the direction in terms of Section 15 of the Act,
                                                                                   c
               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
               payable under the Act. The said claim was also decided ex- D
 ...       ~
               parte. Thereafter he claimed that he had been terminated. He
               made grievances in that regard and on that basis a reference
               was made to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur which was registered
               as Adjudication Case no.334 of 1987. Before the Labour Court, ·
               parties entered into a settlement and an award was passed on E
               9.12.1988 whereunder the appellant was entitled to receive a
               sum of Rs.12,726/-. However, a condition was stipulated that
               the present appellant shall withdraw all applications and
               proceedings made before various authorities under the labour
               laws including under the Act and also under Section 6-H of the F
               U.P. Act. The amount has been paid to the appellant. However,
               he did not withdraw the proceedings and wanted their
               continuance, and some adjudication has also been made ex-
               pa rte.
                     In the writ petitions, stand of the appellant-society was that G
               Act did not apply to the society in view of the notification dated
               30.6.1988. It was also urged that the U.P. Act does not apply to
     ·-i
           "   it as the service conditions of the appellant are governed by
               statutory regulations. The High Court found substance in the plea
               raised by the respondent-society and allowed the writ petition H
    620       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2008] 3 S.C.R.
                                                                               •'.
A   and set aside the orders dated 31.12.1988, 25.9.1989,
    31.3.1990,t>.9.1990 and the award dated 9.12.1988 which was
    made on the basis of a settlement· arrived at betweenthe parties.
       Appellant has challenged legality of the High Court's order
  on the ground that in any event an award made on compromise
B cannot be set aside.

        3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the
    impugned judgment.
          4. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyardhi and Ors. v. State ofBihar
c and Ors. (1997 (4) SCC 391), 1t was held that industrial laws
  do not apply to the employees whose service conditions are
  governed by statutory rules. So, U.P. Act does not apply to
  employees of the cooperative society. The notification dated
  30.6.1988 issued under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the
D Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short 'the Wages Act') makes
  the position clear that provisions of the aforesaid Act are not
                                                                          ~     .
  applicable to the service of workman employed under the
  societies which are registered with the Registrar of Cooperative
  Societies. It was indicated that the salaries and conveyance
E etc. paid by the registrar of the cooperative societies are also
  reviewed from time to time.
        5. In R.C. Tiwari v. MP State Cooperative Marketing
    Federation Ltd. And Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 2652) this Court had
    held that in view of the arbitration clause in the Uttar Pradesh
F Societies Act (in short' Societies Act') provisions of the Industrial
    Disputes Act are not applicable.
        6. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view. But
  so far as award dated 9.12.1988 is concerned, the same was
  made on the basis of a settlement between the parties. That
G
  being so, the High Court ought not to have set aside the award.
  In the ultimate result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside that
  part of the impugned order relating to award dated 9.12.1988. ·             ,. >-'
  There shall be no order as to costs.

H   NJ                                               Appeal allowed.