AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—All the four petitions raised common issues and, therefore, all the Writ Petitions are dealt with by a common order. In all
these petitions, Petitioners are Housing Societies and they are raised a common question in challenging the impugned proceedings. Hence, all the
Writ Petitions are taken together for hearing.
The Petitioner in W.P. No. 1629 of 2001 is the Co-operative Society (Housing). According to the Petitioner, the Co-operative Society was
registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter called ""The Act"") and the said society came into existence on and from
12.04.1988. There are five employees in the Petitioner society. After the appointment of the said employees, the Petitioner entered into a
settlement of wages and other benefits on 13.06.1994 u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for a period of three years. The said settlement was
in force for a period from 1.4.93 to 31.03.1996. After the expiry of the period of settlement, there was no further settlement entered into u/s 18(1)
of the Act. Therefore, the employees of the Society made several demands and, in fact, the employees threatened to go on strike if their demands
were not met by the Petitioner-society. Therefore, a settlement was entered into between the Petitioner society and the employees u/s 18(1) of the
Act and the same was signed in accordance with Rule 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1958 on 27.03.2000 for a period of three years from
1.7.1999. According to the Petitioner as per the settlement the financial commitment has not exceeded 2% of the Working, Capital, the norms
prescribed by the first Respondent. While so, the second Respondent in his proceedings R.C. No. 2068/2000 Sa. Pa. dated 4.9.2000 passed
order to conduct an inspection and investigation by exercise of power u/s 82 of the Act alleging that the Petitioner society has violated the direction
issued by the first Respondent. Registrar, u/s 181 of the Act, in R.C.N0.14635/95/E2 dated 16.10.1997 which directed that the society not enter
into settlement u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in regard to the service condition of the employees without prior permission of the Registrar.
The Petitioner in W.P. Nos. 1630,1631 and 1632 have also entered into a similar agreements with the employees of the respective Petitioner
society on 28.04.2000 providing benefit and revision of wages, bonus etc. to the employees., The second Respondent in the respective Writ
Petition by the impugned proceedings dated 4.09.2000 passed an order to conduct an inspection and investigation by exercise of powers u/s 82 of
the Act alleging that the respective Petitioner-society violated the directions issued by the first Respondent, Registrar, u/s 181 of the Tamil Nadu
Co-operative Societies Act in Rc. No. 14635/95 E2 dated 16.10.1997.
According to the Petitioners, the direction issued by the first Respondent exercising powers u/s 181 of Cooperative Societies Act, directing the
Taluk Co-operative Society not to revise the salary of the employees of the society or cadre strength of the society without the prior permission of
the Registrar is outside the scope of Section 181 of the Act. In view of the same, the said impugned direction of the first Respondent dated
16.10.1997, issued u/s 181 of the Act and the consequential proceedings of the second Respondent dated 4.9.2000 is illegal, as the same
encroached upon the other fields which is governed under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes. Act. Hence, the Petitioner has challenged those
orders in these Writ Petitions. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would contend that u/s 181 of the Act, the first Respondent has no powers
to issue directions as has been issued in his order dated 16.10.1997, directing the Taluk Co-operative Societies not to revise the salaries of the
employees of the Society or cadre strength of the society without the prior permission of the Registrar. In view of the same, the consequential
proceedings of the second Respondent based upon the directions of the first Respondent is also liable to be set aside.
In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench reported in G. Sambandam
Secretary on Extension Kanchipuram Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Kancheepuram v. T. Kutheeswarar and Ors. (2000) 3.M.L.J.674
where in this Court held as follows:
that the power of the Registrar u/s 181 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 can be only with reference to the other provisions of
the Act and the powers conferred on him by the Act, as otherwise if the contention of the Appellants that the Registrar has got wide powers is
accepted, then there won''t be any limit or control, then the Registrar can issue any order as he likes ignoring all other provisions of the Act.
Therefore, the Learned Counsel submitted that in view of the order of the Division Bench, the directions issued by the Registrar u/s 181 of the Act
is liable to be set aside.
The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that a similar question arose in the batch of Writ Petitions before
this Court in W.P. No. 4473 of 1996 etc. This Court, by Order dated 15.11.1999, upheld the power of the Registrar to issue a direction as has
been issued in the impugned proceedings dated 16.10.1997 and therefore, the Petitioners cannot sustain the Writ Petition in challenging both the
directions of the first Respondent issued on 16.10.1997 and the consequential order of the second Respondent dated 4.9.2000. The impugned
order of the first Respondent dated 16.10.1997 made in G.O.Ms. No. 912 Housing and Urban Development (Co-operation-2) Department.
Section 180(1) ""of the Act empowers the Government to make Rules to carryout of or any of the purposes of the Act by virtue of the said power
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act has been framed. As per Rule 149 of the Rules, enables the Registrar in the public interest as well as for
the purpose of securing proper implementation and management of the business and for preventing the affairs of the society for being conducted in
a manner detrimental to the interest of the members, the depositors, the creditors and generally, to issue directions. The directions issued by the
Registrar, the first Respondent, is not canceling the settlement arrived between the respective Petitioner-society and the employees, but only to
investigate into the manner in which such settlements were arrived and also to find out as to whether by those settlements, the Petitioner-societies
had conducted in the manner detrimental to the interest of the members, the depositors, the creditors and generally and also in the public interest as
well as for securing proper implementation and management of the business. Therefore, the Division Bench upheld the power of the Registrar in
giving such directions by virtue of the powers conferred on him u/s 181 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader
submitted that all that writ petitions are squarely covered by the above judgment and therefore these Writ Petitions are liable to be rejected.
The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Registrar by virtue of the powers conferred u/s 181 of the Act cannot issue a direction as has been
done in the impugned order dated 16.10.1997. On a perusal of the said order, it is seen that the first Respondent, has hereby in the public interest
as well as for the purpose of securing proper implementation and management of the business and also to prevent the affairs of the Society from
being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the members, the depositors, the creditors, had merely issued by virtue of the powers
conferred on him u/s 181 of the Act read with Rule 149 of the Rules. By the said impugned order, the first Respondent has directed the Housing
Societies not to increase the salary, not to increase the service conditions without prior permission of the Registrar. Therefore, further direction has
been issued till such time the inspection is completed, no change should be made either in the salary or in the service conditions of employees.
Pursuant to the above direction only the second Respondents by the impugned orders dated 4.9.2000 had appointed Officers to inspect the
society and to submit a report u/s 82 of the Act within a period of three months. When the Authority Competent under the Act to order inspection
u/s 82 of the Act, when it is brought to the notice of such Authority that the Societies had acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the
members, the depositors, the creditors and generally, there is nothing illegal in directing inspection u/s 82 of the Act. I do not find any error either in
the impugned order of the first Respondent or the consequential order of the second Respondent. The issue is not res-integra as the same has been
concluded by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions referred supra. This Court has in detail considered the scope of the Registrar namely the first
Respondent to issue directions by virtue of the powers conferred u/s 181 of the Act as well as under Rule 149 of the Rules. This Court has also
taken note of the fact that by the impugned order, the first Respondent has not directed the society to cancel the settlements as such and all that has
been directed is to conduct an investigation u/s 82 of the Act by named Officer and to submit reports. Such a power has been upheld by this Court
more particularly in the following manner. Namely, the Registrar is empowered to take proper action like audit, enquiry, suppression and
disqualification against the Board and the Officers of the society for violations of the circulars and directions including for having entered into
settlements contrary to those directions.
In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court with regard to the power of the Registrar to issue a direction as has been issued by the
impugned proceedings, I do not find any merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the first Respondent has no power to
issue the impugned order and the action of the second Respondent in issuing consequential orders dated 4.9.2000 on the basis of the order of the
first Respondent.
In that view of the matter, I hold that there are no merits in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. In
view of the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, the connected W.M.P. Nos. 2227 to 2234 of 2001 are also dismissed.