Madras High Court
S. Jina Chandran And Ors. vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 17 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)1MLJ431
ORDER S.S. Subramani, J.
1. In all these writ petitions, the question that arises for consideration is, whether the respondents are entitled to take action against the Society or the Board of Directors to nullify the settlement deeds arrived at by them with the Banks.
2. In all these cases, petitioners contend that whenever the employees make a payment taking into consideration the best interest of the society, and also taking into consideration the financial position, a settlement was arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After settlement is arrived at, a resolution is also passed by the Board of Management to implement the settlement. When such resolutions are passed and wages are paid on the basis of the settlement, respondents are issuing proceedings with an intention to nullify the effect of the settlement either by passing any order that they intend to invoke the proceedings under Section 80 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 or the extra amount paid to the employees is returned to the members in management, or initiate proceedings under Section 153 of the Act. According to petitioners, respondents have no jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings when it is a lawful settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. Even though some of the matters have been admitted and stay was ordered in the year 1991 itself, till date no counter has been filed.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that the point to be decided is already covered by a decision of this Court, and appropriate orders may be passed taking into consideration the said decision.
5. After having heard learned Counsel on both sides, I feel that the facts of all these writ petitions are covered by decision of this Court reported in Tiruchirapalli Hirudayapuram Cooperative Bank Employees Union, etc. etc. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchirapalli (1992) L.L.J. 747 which is also a case coming under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. In that case also, the scope of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act arrived at between the management and the employees was sought to be set at naught by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The same was challenged before a Division Bench, in a batch of writ petitions, and in that case, it was held thus:
...It is true that at the relevant point of time when the Settlements were arrived at, the societies were manned by elected bodies and those office-bearers of the elected bodies represented the cause of the management of the Co-operative Societies in arriving at the settlements. There has been a subsequent change by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies (Appointment of Special Officers) Act 30 of 1991 coming into force and the Special Officers getting hold of the management of the Co-operative Societies. But the tenure of the settlements has not yet lapsed and this is the admitted position. There is no gainsaying that the settlements arrived at shall be binding on the successors-in-office of the co-operative societies. It will not be proper for this Court in the present proceedings to express any opinion with reference to the factors put forth by the respondents as vitiating the settlements and give an adjudication over them. We are only called upon to go into the legal propriety of the proceedings impugned in these cases whereby the settlements are sought to be nullified. Whatever be the nature of the factors alleged as vitiated the settlements, can the respondents by the proceedings impugned, give an adjudication over the settlements and unilaterally nullify them, is the question that alone comes up for consideration by us. Suffice it to point out that what the respondents have done is not only unorthodox, but also not fitting in with any precept of law. The respondents cannot by issuing the proceedings impugned, adjudicate over the settlements and unilaterally set at naught the settlements apparently fitting in with the provisions of the Act. There is a total lack of jurisdiction and competency in law in this regard. This factor alone, in our view, should weigh with us, for purposes of deciding these cases. There is no need for us to travel beyond this.
[Italics supplied] I also had occasion to consider a similar question in Arumuganeri Salt Workers Co-operative Society v. The Deputy Register of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchendur W.P.Nos. 377 and 965 of 1997 dated 24.2.1998, wherein I have followed the Bench decision extracted above. In view of the above legal position it is declared that the settlements arrived at between the Society and its employees are not liable to be unilaterally set aside by the respondents, nor can they initiate proceedings under Section 153 of the Co-operative Societies Act, nor any proceedings under Section 81 of the Act could be initiated for recovering the amount from the persons in management for allegedly paying excess amount to the employees on the basis of the settlements. The writ petitions are ordered as indicated above. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps. that are pending in these W.Ps. are closed.