AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The writ petition is taken for hearing as it is squarely covered by a decision of the, Division Bench of this Court made in P. Eswaramoorthy and others v. R.J.B. Leoraj and others.2008 (3) LLN 244. Heard the submissions made on either side.
The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent also admits that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court referred to above.
The petitioner filed a revision petition, dated 17 November, 2008, u/s 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred as the ''Act'') to the first respondent and the same was returned by the first respondent vide impugned proceedings in A.D.M.K. No. 10943 of 2008 A2, dated 4 December, 2008, directing the petitioner to get relief u/s 90 of the Act.
The aforesaid judgment of this Court has made it very clear that section 90 of the said Act is not applicable to the matters relating to service grievance of the employees of the co-operative societies. Paragraph 24, at page 255 of 2008 (3) L.L.N. (vide supra), of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:
In the light of the above legal journey through various decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court, the following propositions will emerge:
(a) section 90 of the 1983 Act providing for settlement of disputes will not include a dispute between a servant of a co-operative society and its management. Therefore, no dispute can be referred to the Registrar or his nominee u/s 90 and consequently, no appeal will lie to the Tribunal u/s 152.
(b) section 153 of 1983 Act is a departure from section 97 of the 1961 Act and it is wider in nature. Power has been specifically conferred on the revisional authority u/s 153 to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act or the Rules or the bye-laws of any officer subordinate to the Registrar or of the Board of Director or any officer of a registered society or of the competent authority constituted u/s 75(3) of the 1983 Act. Therefore, the employees of a cooperative society can approach the Registrar or any competent authority u/s 153 to revise any order passed by the co-operative society relating to disciplinary action taken against him or denial of promotion or wrong fixation of seniority, etc.
(c) There is no implied ouster of the jurisdiction of the power of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to deal with similar matters if disputes are raised before them by workmen or employees covered by those provisions. Both remedies are available.
(d) The decision in Somasundaram Vs. Liyakat Ali and another, , may not be a good taw. The employees therein filed a civil suit regarding promotion issue. As remedy for the aggrieved parties in that case are available either u/s 153 or by an industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they could not have gone before the civil Court. Therefore, the bar u/s 156 of the Co-operative Societies Act as well as the implied ouster of jurisdiction of the civil Court by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act will directly apply and the suit is barred.
(e) The decision of P. Sathasivam, Judge (as he then was) in K. Radtiakoshnan v. Additional Registrar, 2000 (2) LLN 339. upholding the right of revision u/s 153 has laid the correct position of law. Likewise, the judgment of P. Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) in the The Management of Madras Atomic Power Project Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal) Madras -6 and 2 others, . holding that section 90 of the 1983 Act is not available for employees of co-operative societies against the orders of termination has been correctly decided.
In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court made in the aforesaid decision, the impugned order, dated 4 December, 2008, of the first respondent is quashed. The petitioner is directed to resubmit the revision petition before the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to dispose the revision petition preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of six months from me date of resubmission of the revision petition by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No Costs.