MANAGEMENT, TN SPL 123-MAHENDRAVADI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP BANK LIMITED, MAHENDRAVADI, MARUTHANKINAR POST, SANKARANKOVIL TALUK, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORS OFFICE, KOKKIRAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these four writ petitions, the petitioner is the management of Mahendravadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited represented by its Special Officer.

(2.) The first writ petition challenges an order passed by the Labor Court, Tirunelveli, the third respondent in C.P.No. 8 of 2007, dated 8.3.2008. By the said order, the Labor Court had computed a sum of Rs. 1,00,130/-, which was the salary due and payable from April, 2004 to January, 2007. The rate of wages was calculated at Rs. 2,945/ per month. The said claim petition came to be filed pursuant to an ex parte Award made in I.D.No. 71 of 2001, dated 20.11.2003. The petitioner even before filing C.P.No. 8 of 2007, had earlier filed three other claim petitions and one payment of Wages application. The first one was C.P.No. 10 of 2001, dated 8.5.2002, C.P.No. 31 of 2001 was dated 8.5.2002 and C.P.No. 32 of 2004 was dated 29.3.2006. His payment of wages application in P.W.No. 18 of 2000 was dated 22.10.2001. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered. Pending the notice of motion, no interim order was granted by this court. Curiously, the fourth respondent S. Durairaj (hereinafter referred to as the Workman) had impleaded in the claim petition the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tirunelveli and the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tirunelveli as party respondents. Therefore, they were also shown as party respondents in the writ petition. On notice being issued, the first respondent Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies has filed a counter affidavit, dated 28.01.2009.

(3.) In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the contesting respondent workman was working as a Salesman. In view of the direction issued by the District Collector, the fair price shop run by the petitioner society was directed to be handed over to other cooperative stores at Sankarankoil. The petitioner society was running in financial loss. The fourth respondent had never rendered any service so as to claim any wages. It was also stated that the elected Board of Directors of the society was superseded and a Special Officer was appointed.