AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides. Both writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner, who is a registered Co-operative Society.
In the first writ petition, the challenge is to the common order passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Cuddalore, dated 14.6.2004 made
in several claim petitions filed by respondents 2 to 6. By the impugned order, the Labour Court computed several amounts as due to be paid to the
workmen. The writ petition was admitted on 26.11.2004. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay for a period of three weeks.
Subsequently, when the matter came up on 21.2.2005, this Court made the interim stay absolute on condition that 50% of the amount ordered by
the Labour Court will have to be deposited to the credit of the claim petitions. In the meanwhile, respondents 2 to 6 moved the State Government
u/s 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of the amount due to the workmen as arrears of land revenue by G.O.(D) No. 48,
Labour and Employment Department, dated 19.01.2005.
Excepting respondent No. 6, respondents 2 to 5 once again moved the Labour Court with claim petitions under C.P. Nos. 47 to 50 of 2007
claiming amounts for the period subsequent to the filing of the earlier claim petitions. When notice was issued on those petitions, the petitioner has
filed the second writ petition being W.P. No. 33263 of 2007, challenging the maintainability of those claim petitions.
The ground taken was that earlier claim petitions are pending consideration by this Court. Therefore, the subsequent claim petitions are not
maintainable. When the matter came up on 12.10.2009, it was directed to be posted along with earlier writ petition and an interim stay was
granted for 12 weeks. In view of the interconnectivity between the two writ petitions, they were heard together and a common order is passed.
Heard the arguments of M/s. R. Parthiban and M. Sriram, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner society and Mr. N. Thiagarajan, learned
Counsel for contesting respondents.
Claim petitions were filed by the contesting respondents on the basis of a settlement u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 31.8.1998
marked as Ex.P. 1 before the Labour Court. The petitioner society took the stand in their counter affidavit filed before the Labour Court that the
claims cannot be made u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the claim petitioners ought to have raised a regular industrial dispute.
It was further stated that the employees'' wages were revised by a settlement u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 10.7.96 and that
settlement was in force from 10.10.1995 to 09.10.2000. It was also agreed to between the parties. Subsequently, when the elected Board of
Directors came into office, one A. Viswanathan was elected as the President of the Board of Directors. He without terminating the earlier
settlement and with ulterior motive entered into a settlement u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act without any authority. Even while the earlier
settlement was in currency, the second settlement was signed. It was claimed that approval was obtained from the Deputy Registrar without any
justification. A disciplinary action was taken against the said Deputy Registrar and he was placed under suspension.
It was further claimed that once again the Board of Directors signed an another settlement u/s 12(3), dated 31.8.1998 (Ex.P.1) revising the
scale of pay. In that settlement, representing the management, the so-called President of the Society signed the same. It was also stated that the
said Viswanathan was an employee of the Central Cooperative Bank and he got retired on 30.9.1997. Since he was no longer an employee of the
District Bank, he cannot hold any office as the President of the employees Union and such settlement was a nullity. Further, it was stated that the
issue involved were already the subject matter before this Court in W.P. No. 13914 of 2000. Therefore, the Labour court ought not to have dealt
with the same. The Labour Court held that the settlement u/s 12(3) was approved by the Deputy Registrar vide Ex.P.3 and it was given effect to
and that the said Viswanathan can continue to be the President of the Society. When the matter was covered by the terms of the settlement, there
is no necessity to raise any industrial dispute and the petition u/s 33C(2) is not maintainable. The matter which is pending before the court has no
relevance to the facts of the present case.
It is now brought to the notice of the court that the contesting respondents have earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 3452
of 1999, seeking to challenge the Deputy Registrar''s circular, dated 15.10.1998 and the Board resolution, dated 2.11.1998. In the Board
resolution, dated 2.11.1998, there was a proposal to reduce the pay scale fixed by the settlement, dated 31.8.1998 signed u/s 12(3) and marked
as Ex.P.1. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court held in paragraphs 5 and 8 as follows:
If for any reason the third respondent society passed a resolution unilaterally either revokes or terminates agreement, the remedy of the
petitioners lies elsewhere and not by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, it is a valid
and binding settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the third respondent society under Sections 12(3)/18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act. If the society unilaterally gives a go-by to the settlement, it is for the petitioners or other employees in the third respondent society to raise an
industrial dispute or work out their remedy as may be open to them under the Industrial Disputes Act. If the said remedy is an effective remedy to
enforce settlement, this Court will not be justified in issuing the writ to quash the resolution passed by the third respondent society. Hence the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
...
In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed and it is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to work out their remedies under the
Industrial Disputes Act to enforce Sections 12(3)/18(1) concluded settlement....
In the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents, this Court had clearly stated that if the petitioner Bank reduced the scale of pay
notwithstanding the settlement, they should raise an industrial dispute. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Labour Court by the
petitioner Bank. It is seen from the records that the settlement, dated 10.7.96 is for a period from 10.10.95 to 09.10.2000 signed by the Special
Officer. Likewise the settlement, dated 22.10.1997 wherein the contesting respondents had agreed to revise the scale of pay than the one
provided under the earlier 12(3) settlement. Once again, by settlement under Ex.P.1, scales were revised even while the previous settlement was in
force and that had not been terminated. This Court also in the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents had directed a dispute to be raised in
case there is any reduction of scale of pay, which was not done by the contesting respondents.
A division bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu Vatta Kooturavu Veetu Vasathi Sangangalin Anaithu Paniyalargal Madya Sangam (represented
by its General Secretary R. Raghavendran) v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Cuddalore Circle and Ors. reported in 2008
(2) LLN 236 dealt with the scope of the earlier division bench judgment in Tiruchirapalli Hiruthayapuram Co-operative Bank Employees Union
case (1992 (1) LLN 747) and in paragraphs 16 and 17 observed as follows:
In the light of the above factors, we are convinced that the orders impugned in the writ petitions issued by the first respondent directing the
respective co-operative societies to cancel the settlements which came to be arrived in contravention of the directions issued by the Registrar of the
Co-operative Societies, dated 16 October 1997, issued u/s 181 of the Act 1983 by invoking Section 166 of the Act 1983 are perfectly justified.
We are also convinced that the Division Bench decision in Tiruchirapalli Hiruthayapuram Co-operative Bank Employees Union v. Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Tiruchirapalli (vide supra), upon which heavy reliance was placed upon by the appellant does not in any way support the
stand of the appellant. On the other hand, we can only state that the subsequent direction issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dated
16 October 1997, by invoking the powers vested in him u/s 181 of the Act 1983 was validly made and the impugned orders, dated 12 March
1999 and 8 April 1999, passed in pursuance of the said directions of the Registrar, dated 16 October 1997, as well as by applying Section 166 of
the Act 1983 were all in tune with the observations made in the above referred to Division Bench decision and therefore, we do not find any scope
to interfere with the impugned orders. Moreover, so long as the directions issued by the Registrar, dated 16 October 1997, u/s 181 of the Act
1983 remains in force, the subsequent directions and the impugned orders issued by the first respondent by invoking Section 166 of the Act 1983
were well within the powers and jurisdiction of the first respondent.
It will have to be stated that the appellant not having challenged the directions of the Registrar, dated 16 October 1997 issued u/s 181 of the
Act 1983, cannot be permitted to challenge the consequential orders passed u/s 166 of the Act 1983 impugned in the writ petitions.
Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court was beyond its jurisdiction and does not flow from the power vested on it u/s 33C(2). The
contesting respondents ought to have raised an industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act for enhancing their salaries.
In the light of the above, W.P. No. 34526 of 2004 will stand allowed. The common order of the Labour Court, dated 14.6.2004 will stand set
aside. No costs. The petitioner society is at liberty to withdraw the amount lying in the deposit of the Labour Court.
In the light of the above, the writ petition in W.P. No. 33263 of 2007, wherein the summons issued by the Labour court were sought to be
impugned, will also stand allowed. No costs. In view of the earlier claim petitions being set aside, the question of the contesting respondents
maintaining the further claim petitions does not arise. However, it is open to them to raise an appropriate dispute if so aggrieved by the non
payment of salary under the so-called settlement filed and marked as Ex.P.1. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.