State law on co-operative society disputes upheld, with special forum and exclusion of Labour Court jurisdiction maintained.

The Karnataka amendment to Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act was held to be within State legislative competence and protected from repugnancy because it was enacted with Presidential assent under Article 254(2). The Court held that the provision validly created a special dispute mechanism for matters concerning co-operative societies, including employment terms, working conditions and disciplinary action, and that its non obstante language lawfully excluded Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction to that extent. Challenges based on absence of union participation and the Registrar's lack of judicial status were rejected because the forum was statutory and quasi-judicial. The constitutional challenge failed, and the amendment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1997, inserting and amending Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, was beyond the legislative competence of the State or invalid for repugnancy. (ii) Whether the amendment validly ousted the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal in disputes between co-operative societies and their employees, and whether objections based on union representation and the status of the Registrar could invalidate it.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment was beyond legislative competence or invalid for repugnancy.

Analysis: The State legislature was competent to enact on co-operative societies under the State List and could also legislate on industrial disputes in the concurrent field. The amendment was made with Presidential assent after reservation, and Article 254(2) protected the State law notwithstanding any inconsistency with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court also applied the settled principle that a statute is presumed constitutional and the burden lies on the challenger to establish invalidity.

Conclusion: The amendment was within legislative competence and was not invalid on the ground of repugnancy.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment validly excluded Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction and whether the allied challenges to the forum were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 70, read with Section 71, created a special mechanism for disputes touching the constitution, management, business, employment terms, working conditions, and disciplinary action in co-operative societies. The express non obstante language and the specific exclusion of court jurisdiction showed that the Industrial Disputes Act applied only to the extent disputes were outside Section 70. The Court further held that the absence of union participation in individual employee disputes did not invalidate the provision, and that the Registrar's lack of judicial status was no ground to strike down the amendment because the adjudicatory function was statutory and quasi-judicial.

Conclusion: The exclusion of Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction was upheld, and the amendment was held valid.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to the amendment failed, the earlier Division Bench view did not require reconsideration, and the individual writ matters were sent back for disposal by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a State law on co-operative societies, enacted within competence and supported by Presidential assent, expressly provides a special forum and excludes other adjudicatory forums for disputes falling within its scope, the exclusion is valid and the Industrial Disputes Act yields to that extent.

---