Labour Court jurisdiction and stale termination claims cannot be displaced without Presidential assent or revived by later statutory remedy.

A State amendment to the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act did not oust Labour Court jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act unless it expressly created repugnancy and received Presidential assent; the 1976 amendment only created a concurrent forum before the Registrar, while the exclusion of Labour Court remedies took effect only from 20.6.2000. A direct termination challenge under Section 10(4A) had to be filed within the prescribed six-month period, and the transitional language did not revive stale claims. A challenge to a 1978 termination filed in 1988 was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was barred by Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and if so, from when. (ii) Whether an application under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could be entertained in respect of a termination said to have occurred in 1978.

Issue (i): Whether the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was barred by Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and if so, from when.

Analysis: Section 70, as amended in 1976, treated disputes between a co-operative society and its employees as disputes touching the business of the society, but that amendment did not receive Presidential assent and did not expressly exclude the Labour Court's jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the absence of repugnancy backed by Presidential assent, the 1976 amendment could only create a concurrent forum before the Registrar and did not oust the remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. The later amendment by Act 2 of 2000 expressly excluded Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals and, having received Presidential assent, operated only from 20.6.2000.

Conclusion: The Labour Court had jurisdiction when it decided the dispute in 1996, and the bar on Labour Court jurisdiction arose only from 20.6.2000.

Issue (ii): Whether an application under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could be entertained in respect of a termination said to have occurred in 1978.

Analysis: Section 10(4A) provided a direct remedy to challenge termination within six months from communication of the order, with a limited transitional extension for terminations communicated within six months before the provision came into force. The provision was not intended to revive stale or dead claims. A claim arising from a termination in 1978, and filed only in 1988, was far outside the permissible period and was not saved by the transitional language.

Conclusion: The application under Section 10(4A) was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The award of the Labour Court could not be sustained because the statutory direct remedy was invoked far beyond the permissible time, and the appellant was not entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A State amendment affecting co-operative society disputes does not oust jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act unless the amendment, duly assented to by the President, expressly creates repugnancy and exclusion; a later direct termination remedy cannot revive stale claims barred before its commencement.

---