However, as there was an inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the claim statement, the Labour Court awarded only 50 back wages in addition to companytinuity of service and companysequential benefits.
None was examined on behalf of the respondent to deny the said certificate.
The respondent challenged the said award in W.P. No.7227/1997.
A Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment dated 15.6.2005, dismissed the writ appeal, holding that an employee of a companyoperative society having a claim against the employer has to raise a dispute under Section 70 of the KCS Act.
The decision in Veerashiva Co operative Bank was approved and reiterated by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Sugar Workers Federation v. State of Karnataka 2003 4 Kar.
It was brought into effect from 20.1.1976.
It was also companytended that the respondent number having raised any objection about want of jurisdiction before the Labour Court, companyld number subsequently be permitted to raise the plea of want of jurisdiction before the High Court.
The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the appellant in a writ appeal.
The respondent Karnataka Milk Federation, Unit Bijapur filed an objection statement companytending that it came into existence and took over the Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur, long after the alleged termination of appellant by Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur.
Section 70 was amended by Karnataka Co operative Societies Amendment Act, 1976 Karnataka Act 19 of 1976 .
The appellant gave evidence and produced a certificate dated 19.2.1978 allegedly issued by the Dairy Supervisor, Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur, certifying that he had worked as a casual labourer from 13.5.1977 to 19.2.1978.
The appellant claims that he was employed as a daily wage labourer in the Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur, on 13.5.1977.
The respondent denied the claim of the appellant that he was a daily wage worker between 13.5.1977 and 1.3.1980 and that his services were termination in violation of section 25F of the ID Act.
The Labour Court made an award dated 15.10.1996 directing reinstatement, holding that Appellant had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding termination 13.5.1977 to 19.2.1978 , and the termination of his service, without companyplying with section 25F of ID Act, amounted to illegal retrenchment.
He further alleges that he worked companytinuously and uninterruptedly till his services were illegally terminated with effect from 1.3.1980.
The appellant did number challenge his termination.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 2175 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.3796/2006 RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
In that case, the appellant was an employee of a Co operative Bank and he was removed from service after a disciplinary inquiry.
The Amendment Act received the assent of the Governor on 7.3.1976.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court held in Veerashiva Co operative Bank Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 2001 3 Kar.
On companysideration of the material, the Labour Court accepted the said service certificate, but did number accept his further self serving statement that he worked up to 1.3.1980 as such claim was number supported by any document.
The Division Bench purported to follow the decision of the Full Bench in Karnataka Sugar Workers Federation.
The Appellant companytends that amended Section 70 of the KCS Act took away the jurisdiction of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals functioning under the ID Act, only when the amendments to the said section as per Act 2 of 2000 came into effect on 20.6.2000, and it did number nullify an award made by the Labour Court prior to that date, that is on 15.10.1996.
The appellant companytended that his termination amounted to illegal retrenchment, as the respondent failed to companyply with the mandatory requirements of Section 25 F of ID Act even though he had worked companytinuously for more than 240 days in a year.
The said decision of the Division Bench is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
Following the decision of the Full Bench, a Single Judge of the High Court, allowed the Respondent employers writ petition, by order dated 1.2.2005, holding that ID Act was inapplicable to a dispute raised by an employee of a companyoperative society.
This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 15.6.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.2131/2005.
L.J. 519 that the procedure for adjudication and the remedy provided under the Karnataka Co operative Societies Act, 1959 KCS Act for short being companyprehensive, the jurisdiction of Labour Courts under ID Act to deal with such disputes was barred.
He therefore set aside the award of the Labour Court, reserving liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy in accordance with law.
L.J. 353.
