AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioners seek issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the President, Kannampalayam Powerloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd, the 4th Respondent herein relating to the order dated 17.6.1998 temporarily expelling the Petitioners from the membership of the 4th Respondent society, quash the same and pass such further orders.
Five Petitioners joined together in filing the above Writ Petition challenging the order of the 4th Respondent. They have been suspended temporarily u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The main grievance of the Petitioners is that the 4th Respondent is not paying minimum wages to the labourers and is also not paying the wages fixed by the Government. It is also said that the 4th Respondent is having personal animosity against the Petitioners and at the instance of the Petitioners, the 4th Respondent was compelled to supply yarn to them and also to pay weaving wages as fixed by the Government. On 4.5.1998, notices were issued to the Petitioners alleging some charges against them. Petitioners sent reply denying the same. Thereafter, Petitioners received a communication dated 17.6.1998 temporarily removing them from the membership. It is said that the action has been taken u/s 25 of the Co-operative Societies Act.
A detailed Counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th Respondent wherein they disputed the maintainability of the Writ Petition. Various allegations against the 4th Respondent is also denied. It is further said that the Petitioners attempted to assault one of the directors, which resulted in a police complaint. There was a compromise thereafter and the Petitioners themselves gave an undertaking before the police authorities that they will not resort to illegal activities in future. Thereafter, they again continued their illegal activities which compelled the 4th Respondent to issue show cause notice on 4.5.1998. The reply given by the Petitioners on 14.5.1998 were not convincing and hence they were expelled. It is said as per Bye-law No. 41, the Board of Directors are empowered to suspend the members following the provisions u/s 25 of the Act. It is said that it is only interim suspension and the Court cannot interfere at this stage. It prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned order has been passed u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. If that be so, the order could be passed only following the procedures if the case is expulsion. Before taking any action u/s 25 of the Act, there must be a special meeting of the General Body and at least 2/3rd of the members must vote for the same, who are present at the time of the meeting. The quorum is also fixed by the Statute, taking into consideration the total membership of the Society.
It is said that no special meeting, of the General Body was convened and it is only the Directors'' Board decided the expulsion. The Respondents have no case that they have followed the procedures u/s 25 of the Act. In fact, the reply is that for the interim suspension, the statement was issued u/s 25 of the Act and they have exercised the powers only under Bye-law No. 41. The learned Government Pleader submitted that if the Society got power to pass an order of interim suspension, mere statement itself will not be a ground for interference. I agree with the legal submission made by the learned Government Pleader.
Further question that is to be considered is whether Bye-law No. 41 enables suspension for the reasons stated in the counter affidavit. Bye-law No. 41 read thus.