Special dispute mechanism under co-operative societies law excludes Labour Court reference and gives prior misconduct finding binding effect.

The M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was treated as a special dispute-resolution code for employment, service conditions and disciplinary action within a society, and its broad mechanism for disputes touching the society's constitution, management or business excluded recourse to a Labour Court reference under the Industrial Disputes Act for the same matter. The earlier decision by the Deputy Registrar upholding misconduct was treated as a final determination on that issue, and the res judicata principle applied mutatis mutandis even though the forum was not a civil court. The Labour Court reference was therefore held not maintainable and the jurisdictional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was maintainable in view of the dispute-resolution mechanism under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and whether an earlier finding by the Deputy Registrar operated as res judicata.

Analysis: Section 55 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 specifically empowered the Registrar or an authorised officer to decide disputes concerning employment terms, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, and made such decision binding on the society and its employees. Section 64 of the same Act was of wide amplitude and provided a special mechanism for disputes touching the constitution, management or business of the society. On that scheme, the Act created a special forum and excluded recourse to the Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the same dispute. The earlier adjudication by the Deputy Registrar upholding misconduct constituted a final determination on the issue, and the principle underlying res judicata applied mutatis mutandis even though the authority was not a civil court.

Conclusion: The reference before the Labour Court was not maintainable, the earlier finding bound the parties, and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.

---