The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the right of a workman to invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be extinguished merely because an alternative remedy exists under a special statute such as the Cooperative Societies Act. This ruling restores a foundational principle of labour jurisprudence and clarifies the non-exclusivity of statutory remedies for workmen.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, workmen employed by cooperative societies in Haryana, were terminated from service. They sought redressal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by way of reference under Section 10. However, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurugram, declined to adjudicate the references on the ground that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, and therefore the references were not maintainable. The Tribunal relied on the decision in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka to justify its view that special laws override general labour statutes.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were employed by cooperative societies registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984
- Their termination was challenged under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
- The cooperative societies invoked Section 102 and Section 103 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act to adjudicate service disputes
- The Registrar of Cooperative Societies passed orders on termination, which the petitioners sought to challenge before the Labour Court
- The Industrial Tribunal held that the existence of a remedy under the Cooperative Societies Act barred referral under the Industrial Disputes Act
Procedural History
- Date of termination: Not specified in judgment, but references filed in 2018
- 14.03.2017: Labour Court in a connected case (LPA-1908-2018) held that reference under Section 10 ID Act was not maintainable due to alternative remedy
- 08.02.2019: Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gurugram, returned the references unanswered, citing non-maintainability
- 12.09.2024: Division Bench of this Court in Savitri Devi v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal set aside similar orders, holding that remedies under ID Act are not barred by special laws
- 05.09.2024: Another Division Bench in Jagjit Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana reaffirmed the same principle
- 18.11.2019: Petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
- 24.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
- Argued that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a special statute designed to protect the rights of workmen
- Relied on TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 to show that the Supreme Court did not intend to bar ID Act remedies
- Cited Ambala Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1993) 2 SCT 310, where a Full Bench of this Court held that remedies under the ID Act cannot be denied even if a remedy exists under the Cooperative Societies Act
- Emphasized that Section 10 of the ID Act confers a statutory right to refer disputes, which cannot be ousted by administrative orders under cooperative laws
- Relied on a Coordinate Bench order dated 06.02.2025 in Sunil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ambala
For the Respondent
- Did not dispute the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court or this Court
- Did not contest the applicability of Ambala Central Co-op. Bank or Jagjit Singh
- Accepted that the Tribunal erred in declining jurisdiction
Relief Sought
- Setting aside of the order dated 08.02.2019 refusing to entertain the references
- Direction to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the references on merits
- Declaration that the existence of an alternative remedy under the Cooperative Societies Act does not bar jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act
The Legal Issue
Can the Industrial Tribunal refuse to adjudicate a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, merely because an alternative remedy is available under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the binding precedent of the Full Bench of this Court in Ambala Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1993) 2 SCT 310, which held that the remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act are not barred by special laws such as the Cooperative Societies Act. They argued that Section 10 of the ID Act creates an independent statutory right for workmen to have disputes referred to the Labour Court, regardless of whether an administrative remedy exists under another statute. The petitioners further contended that the Tribunal’s reliance on TMA Pai Foundation was misplaced, as that case dealt with the jurisdiction of educational tribunals and did not address the non-exclusivity of remedies under labour law. They cited Jagjit Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (05.09.2024) as recent affirmation of this principle.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not advance any substantive counter-argument. The learned Senior Advocate for the State conceded that the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court’s Division Bench was clear and binding. The respondent accepted that the Tribunal’s order was contrary to established precedent and did not oppose the setting aside of the impugned order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the issue was no longer res integra, having been authoritatively settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Ambala Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1993) 2 SCT 310. The Full Bench held that the Industrial Disputes Act, being a special statute enacted for the protection of workmen, provides an independent and non-excludable remedy. The Court emphasized that Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, which sought to bar Labour Court jurisdiction, was declared ultra vires.
"Jurisdiction of the Civil Court would obviously be barred to challenge those decisions. However, Industrial Disputes Act dealing with the special subject relating to rights of the workman and the management and the relief provided therein could only be granted by the Court established under the Industrial Disputes Act."
The Court further noted that the Division Bench in Savitri Devi v. Presiding Officer (12.09.2024) and Jagjit Singh v. Presiding Officer (05.09.2024) had consistently reaffirmed this position. The Tribunal’s reliance on TMA Pai Foundation was found to be a misreading of the Supreme Court’s intent, which was to uphold the autonomy of special tribunals in their domain, not to oust the jurisdiction of Labour Courts under the ID Act.
The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy under the Cooperative Societies Act does not extinguish the statutory right of a workman to invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the ID Act. The principle of non-exclusivity of remedies is a cornerstone of labour jurisprudence in India, and the Tribunal’s refusal to entertain the references was a clear error of law.
The Verdict
The writ petitions are allowed. The orders dated 08.02.2019, refusing to entertain the references under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurugram, to decide the references on merits in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20.04.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Alternative Remedy Does Not Bar Labour Court Jurisdiction
- Practitioners must now argue that any claim under Section 10 of the ID Act remains maintainable even if a remedy exists under a special statute like the Cooperative Societies Act, State Service Rules, or Education Acts
- The burden shifts to the employer to prove that the dispute falls outside the scope of the ID Act, not that another forum exists
- Orders dismissing references on grounds of alternative remedy are now per incuriam in light of Ambala Central Co-op. Bank and Jagjit Singh
Workmen’s Rights Are Statutorily Protected
- The Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare statute and must be interpreted liberally
- Termination disputes involving workmen in cooperative societies, public sector undertakings, or educational institutions cannot be sidestepped by invoking administrative remedies
- Labour Courts must be approached first in termination cases; filing appeals under other statutes does not constitute election of remedy
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Industrial Tribunals must not decline jurisdiction on procedural or technical grounds
- Referrals under Section 10 must be entertained unless the dispute is manifestly outside the definition of "industrial dispute" under Section 2(k)
- Failure to adjudicate on merits constitutes a violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution
