Madras High Court
K.Kamaraj vs The Chief Executive Officer on 22 July, 2011
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NOs.124, 1244, 4417, 4772,5102, 7440, 8298, 8324,8787, 9091, 9432, 10056 to 10058, 10695, 19831, 14171, 14233, 14303, 14710, 16876, 19748, 20761, 21335, 21527, 21621, 22263, 22594 and 24800 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.2,1,2,2,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,2, 1 to 3,2, 1,1,1,1,2,1 and 1 of 2009 and 1 of 2011 1.K.Kamaraj 2.A.Lakshmanan 3.P.P.Krishnan 4.P.Perumal 5.C.Govindan 6.Chinnapappa .. Petitioners in W.P.No.124 of 2009 Vs. 1.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108. 2.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Tiruvannamalai. 3.District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Tiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents in W.P.No.124 of 2009 W.P.No.124 of 2009 has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent made in proceedings Na.Ka.M 3/53559/2008 dated 17.11.2008 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.Su.Srinivasan Ms.D.Geetha Mr.P.B.Sureshbabu Mr.G.Jeremiah Mr.C.Prakasam Mr.V.P.Munusamy Ms.P.V.Rajeswari Mr.D.Naveen Durai Babu Mr.K.Premkumar Mr.M.Hidayathulla Khan Mr.S.M.Subramaniam Mr.K.Raja Mr.N.Manoharan Mr.T.Sundaravadanam Ms.C.Uma Ms.Na.Thara Mr.Thanjai P.N.Chezhian Ms.K.A.Suvetha Mr.G.Rajan Mr.Dalit Tiger C.Ponnusamy Mr.K.Govindaraj Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Muthukumar, GA for R-3 in W.P.No.124 of 2009 for R-1 in W.P.No.4417 of 2009 for RR1 and 2 in W.P.No.7440 of 2009 for RR2 and 3 in W.P.No.8298 of 2009 for R-1 in W.P.Nos.9091, 14710, 21527, of 2009 for RR1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.10056 to 10058/2009 for RR1 to 3 in W.P.Nos.14171, 20761 of 2009 for RR1 to 4 in W.P.No.22263 of 2009 for RR1 and 3 in W.P.No.24800 of 2009 Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.G.P. For R-1 in W.P.No.1244 of 2009 for R-1 in W.P.No.5102, 8787, 9432, of 2009 for RR1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.10695, 21621 of 2009 for R-1 in W.P.Nos.19831, 14233, 14303, 16876, 21335, 22594 of 2009 Mrs.G.Thilakavathy for R-2 in W.P.Nos.1244, 4417 of 2009 for R-3 in W.P.No.21621 of 2009 Mr.C.R.Dhasarathan for R-2 in W.P.No.4772 of 2009 Mrs.V.Bhavanisubbarayan for R-1 in W.P.No.8298 of 2009 Mr.K.Rajashrinivas in W.P.No.8324 of 2009 Mr.S.Silambanan for R-2 in W.P.No.8787 of 2009 Ms.C.K.Vishnupriya for R-2 in W.P.No.9091 of 2009 Mr.V.Manoharan for R-2 in W.P.Nos.9432, 21527 of 2009 M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates for R-3 in W.P.No.10695 of 2009 Mr.S.Gopinathan for R-2 in W.P.No.19831 of 2009 Mr.M.Dhandapani for R-2 in W.Ps.14233, 16876, of 2009 Mr.C.S.Saravanan for R-2 in W.P.14710 of 2009 Mr.K.Tamilvendan in W.P.No.19748 of 2009 Mr.S.Siashanmugam for R-4 in WP.20761/2009 Mr.B.K.Girish Neelakandan for R-2 in W.P.No.21335 of 2009 Mr.S.N.Ravichandran for R-6 in W.P.No.22263 of 2009 Ms.S.Anitha for R-2 in W.P.No22594 of 2009 Mr.P.Gurunathan for R-2 in WP.24800 of 2009 No appearance for R-3 in W.P.No.4417 of 2009 for R-1 in W.P.No.4772 of 2009 for RR2 and 3 in W.P.No.5102 of 2009 for R-3 in W.P.Nos.7440, 8787,9432, 14233 of 2009 for R-4 in W.P.No.14171 of 2009 for R-2 in W.P.No.14303 of 2009 for R-5 in W.P.No.22263 of 2009 - - - - COMMON ORDER
Except in W.P.No.124 of 2009, in all these writ petitions, the challenge is to the various orders passed by the Cooperative societies either relating to the service conditions of employees or disciplinary action taken against them or relating to the initiation of surcharge proceedings. The nature of relief claimed in each of the writ petition is briefly set out below:
Sl.No. W.P.No. Relief claimed 1 W.P.No.124 of 2009 DRO letter for Revenue recovery pursuant to the order of surcharge made under section 87, dated nil. 2 W.P.No.1244 of 2009 Direct to implement the settlement by R-2 Sugar Mill (Cooperative) dated 25.11.2008 filed by the trade union. 3 W.P.No.4417 of 2009 Direct R-2 Sugar mil (Madurantakam Coop.) to pay Good will amount to workmen 4 W.P.No.4772 of 2009 TCMPF letter to Erode society denial of promotion 5 W.P.No.5102 of 2009 PACB letter appointing Enquiry Officer (claim to be common cadre) 6 W.P.No.7440 of 2009 Not to interfere with concluded settlement under Section 18(1) of the ID Act. 7 W.P.No.8298 of 2009 Direction to pay service benefits 8 W.P.No.8324 of 2009 (Puducherry) Refusal to be appointed as Junior Assistant cum Cashier Grade III 9 W.P.No.8787 of 2009 Dismissal order by society 10 W.P.No.9091 of 2009 Suspension 11 W.P.No.9432 of 2009 Enquiry notice (not valid in terms of Ordinance 8/2008) 12 W.P.Nos.10056 to 10058 of 2009 Section 81 enquiry notice 13 W.P.No.10695 of 2009 Section 87(1) Enquiry notice 14 W.P.No.14171 of 2009 Not to interfere with concluded settlements. 15 W.P.No.14233 of 2009 No enquiry notice 16 W.P.No.14303 of 2009 Refusal to change domestic enquiry officer by society. 17 W.P.No.14710 of 2009 Section 87 Surcharge order 18 W.P.No.16876 of 2009 To participate in the examination for selection 19 W.P.No.19748 of 2009 Dismissal by TCMPF 20 W.P.No.19831 of 2009 Enquiry notice 21 W.P.No.20761 of 2009 Regularisation 22 W.P.No.21335 of 2009 Refusal to settle terminal benefits 23 W.P.No.21527 of 2009 Suspension 24 W.P.No.21621 of 2009 Pay fixation by sugar mill 25 W.P.No.22263 of 2009 Termination order by society 26 W.P.No.22594 of 2009 Attachment notice by Deputy Registrar under Section 167. 27 W.P.No.24800 of 2009 Suspension
2.It must be noted that a Larger Bench of this court in K.Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal-636 001 and another reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689 had held that a writ petition will not lie against a Cooperative Society even if they are headed by a Special Officer appointed by the Act of State Legislature.
3.In cases where suspensions are attacked on the ground that orders of suspension do not specify the period of suspension in terms of Section 76(1) of the Act, a Full Bench of this court in A.S.Subramani Vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tindivanam Region reported in 2006 (4) CTC 444, negatived such a claim and rejected the contentions made in this regard.
4.In cases if there were denial of subsistence allowance or termination, arguments were made on the ground that it would amount to deprivation of livelihood which is akin to deprivation of liberty and thus such deprivations are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in such cases, maintainability of writ petitions is not in doubt. Even that issue came to be considered by a subsequent Full Bench in T.K.Ananda Sayanan Vs. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Vellore Region reported in 2007 (5) CTC 1. In that case, rejecting the contentions based on Article 21, the Full Bench held that Marappan's case (cited supra) squarely covers even those cases and aggrieved persons will have to find their remedies either under the provisions of the Act or under any other enactments applicable to such employees.
5.Thereafter, in cases where terminations were sought to be made on grounds that appointments were either irregular or due to lack of qualifications, certain groups of writ petitions came to be filed stating that the Government had taken a policy decision to absorb such employees and till such time, the court must give protective orders. Even those cases came to be rejected by a Full Bench of this court in R.Radhakrishnan Vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dindigul reported in 2007 (4) LLN 868.
6.In W.P.Nos.7440 of 2009 and 14171 of 2009, the prayer is not to interfere with the concluded settlements signed under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. W.P.No.1244 of 2009 is for a direction to implement the settlement by the cooperative Sugar mill filed by the trade union. In respect of those claims, the matter has been squarely covered by a division bench judgment of this court in T.N.Vatta Kooturavu Veetu Vasathi Sangangalin Anaithu Paniyalargal Madya Sangam Vs. Dy Registrar of Coop. Societies, Cuddalore and others reported in 2008 (2) LLN 236. Hence these three writ petitions are deserved to be dismissed.
7.In W.P.Nos.10056 to 10058 of 2009, the challenge is to the notice under Section 81 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Section 81 notice cannot be challenged as it is only advisory and made only for the Registrar to understand the working of the society. In case of any adverse finding against any person in the society, a further proceedings will have to be initiated in terms of civil, criminal or disciplinary action. Therefore, there is time enough for the aggrieved person to challenge as and when any further proceedings are initiated. Even the so called limitation prescribed therein is held to be directory and not mandatory by a learned judgment of this court in G.Pannerselvam and others Vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dharmapuri and others reported in (2009) 2 MLJ 901. The said judgment came to be confirmed by a division bench presided by A.K.Ganguly, C.J. (as he then was) in A.Balaraman and others Vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District and others reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1032. Hence there is no case made out to interfere with those orders.
8.In W.P.No.10695 of 2009, the challenge is to the surcharge proceedings under Section 87(1) and in W.P.No.14710 of 2009, the challenge is to the surcharge order passed under Section 87. In W.P.No.22594 of 2009, it is an attachment notice issued by the Deputy Registrar under Section 167. In case of preliminary notice under Section 87(1), it is for the petitioners to participate in the surcharge proceedings. In case of final surcharge order as well as attachment notice under Section 167, the Act provides for a remedy by way of an appeal to the Cooperative Tribunal under Section 152. The said Tribunal is presided by a senior District Judge and has all power of the civil court in entertaining the appeal. It also has power to grant interim orders if cases are made out. Certainly, the writ petitions will not lie challenge these proceedings.
9.In W.P.No.124 of 2009, Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned counsel submitted that he challenges the revenue recovery notice issued by the District Revenue Officer. But that is a part of the execution proceedings initiated by the society pursuant to the surcharge order made under Section 87, dated Nil. Since the main surcharge proceedings are not under challenge, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the revenue recovery proceedings. Further if any properties are unjustly attached or brought to sale, the aggrieved party can complain to the Sale Officer in terms of Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules. The petitioners without challenging the substantive order cannot challenge the revenue recovery proceedings which is a natural consequence of the final order passed by the respondents. In view of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition.
10.In the light of the above, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
vvk To
1.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108.
2.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Tiruvannamalai.
3.District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Tiruvannamalai District