Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Haryana State Cooperative Land ... vs The Haryana State Cooperative Land ... on 20 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)115PLR825
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. The Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Employees Union through its General Secretary Mr. M.R. Attri seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash letter/order, Annexure P-4, dated November 5, 1986 and direct the respondents to sanction and pay bonus to the employees working with the Primary Cooperative Land Development Banks in the State of Haryana at the same rate at which it is sanctioned and paid to the employees working with the Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank at Chandigarh.
2. Brief facts, on which the relief asked for is sought to res reveal that the petitioner is a trade union duly registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The members of the Union, who are stated to be more than 1000 are working with the Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank at Chandigarh and the Primary Cooperative Land Development Banks in the State of Haryana. The Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1) is an apex Cooperative Society registered under, and governed by, the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and by its own bye-laws registered under the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Bank transacts its business mainly through the Primary cooperative Land Development Banks (hereinafter referred to as the Primary Banks) which are its members. There is close structural and functional inter-locking between the State Bank and the Primary Banks. All the members of the State Bank, belonging to the area of operation of the Primary Bank are deemed to have become members of the Primary Bank from the date of its registration. At present there are about seventy Primary Banks in the State of Haryana. But for Class IV employees, all other personnel of the Primary Banks are provided by the State Bank, which sends its own employees on deputation to the Primary Banks. Model Bye-law 70 of the Primary Banks reads thus:-
"The Staff excepting Class IV employees required by the Primary Bank for carrying out its functions shall be obtained from the State Bank out of the cadre maintained by it".
The employees in the service of the State Bank, including those working with the Primary Banks, have been constituted into a common cadre under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Haryana, has framed rules under Section 37(2) of the Act to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of such employees in the common cadre. Rule 21 of the Staff Service Rules makes provision for payment of bonus. The same reads thus:-
"21. (Bonus):
(i) The employees of the Bank shall be entitled to bonus at the rate which the State Bank is required to pay under the provisions of the Bonus Act, 1965. The Staff working in the Primary Cooperative Land Development Banks will be entitled to bonus at the same rate at which it is sanctioned to the staff working in head office. However, the bonus to the staff working in the primary Cooperative Land Development Banks will be paid by the Primary Cooperative Land Development Banks concerned.
XX XX"
3. The grouse of the petitioner Union is that despite the fact that its members are governed by Rule 21 of the Staff Service Rules and are, therefore, entitled to the same bonus as is made admissible to the staff working in the head office, yet they have been paid bonus @ 8.33% instead of 20%. It may be mentioned here that the employees of the head office were paid bonus @ 20%. Besides, therefore, relying upon rule 21, learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon recommendation Annexure P-6, made by the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 to the Registrar Cooperative Societies that the members of the petitioner Union, who are working with the Primary Banks should also be paid bonus @ 20%. The counsel also contends that it is only a question of chance that the members of the petitioner Union were sent on deputation and if bonus is not paid to them at the same rate as is being paid to the employees working in the head office, it would be discriminatory.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents the factual position has not been disputed. All that has been stated to oppose the cause of petitioner Union is that the employees working with the Primary Cooperative Land Development Banks are not entitled to bonus at the rate of 20% because all such Primary Banks have in- dependent Boards and their balance sheets are prepared separately for every accounting year.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the points raised by Mr. Gupta have merit and, therefore, this petition must succeed. Once the employees of the Bank are governed by statutory rules with regard to payment of bonus, it shall be wholly immaterial if at a particular given time they were holding a post in the head office or in the primary Banks located all-over the State. Statutory Rules have necessarily to be followed. It is not disputed, as mentioned in the writ petition, that Rule 21 governs the field and by virtue of the said Rule, an employee of the Primary Bank is entitled to bonus at the same rate which is being paid to the employees of the head office. The respondents have placed reliance upon Section 3 of the Bonus Act with a view to deny the quantum of bonus as envisaged under Rule 21 supra. It is their case that an employee is entitled to bonus at a specified rate mentioned in Section 3 of the Bonus Act. The Court is, however, of the view that when specific Rules pertaining to bonus are made applicable to the employees of a particular service, the provisions with regard to same in the Bonus Act which are general would not apply. Otherwise too, it appears to this Court that non-payment of the bonus at the same rate to the employees of the Primary Banks, who are on deputation, would be discriminatory. In somewhat similar circumstances, a Single Bench of this Court decided this controversy in favour of the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 428 of 1980 (Sonepat Central Coop. Bank Employees' Union and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.) decided on September 12, 1988.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to pay the members of the petitioner Union bonus at the same rate at which it is paid to the employees working with the Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank at Chandigarh. No orders as to costs.