M C KUPPAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five writ petitioners, who are retired employees of the 4th respondent Dharmapuri District Central Cooperative Bank, filed the present Writ Petition challenging the Settlement dated 16.6.2010 signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the 4th respondent and four Trade Unions, namely, the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Bank Employees Association, Chennai, Dharmapuri District Cooperative Sector Bank Employees Union, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District Cooperative Employees Munnetra Sangam and Dharmapuri District Central Cooperative Bank Anna Employees' Union in respect of the wages and other service conditions.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners who are retired from service long years before (8 years before) was that under the terms of settlement in paragraph No.2, the wage benefits were given so that the employees will get 7% or 14% as the existing basic pay plus personal pay if any plus DA as on 1.1.2006. It is also indicated that from the sum so arrived, the revised basic pay and revised DA will be segregated and the employees will get 7% or 14% of basic pay plus personal pay if any, plus DA as on 1.1.2006. With effect from 1.1.2006 only, notional effect will be given to the employees who are covered by the terms of the settlement. In the same settlement, in paragraph 4, it was stated that all existing benefits and service conditions, which are not changed in the Circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies will continue to be applicable and the settlement has been signed without prejudice to the cases pending before the Division Bench. It is also indicated that it applies to all the workmen who are covered by the Bank.

(3.) IT must be noted that the fixation of wage in respect of a Cooperative Society including the District Central Cooperative Bank has to be done in terms of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules. IT is not necessary that every order of the Government has to be implemented by the Cooperative Society. But, in the present case, the wage settlement has been arrived with all the Trade Unions functioning in the Bank with the assistance of the Government Labour Officers and signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. IT is undoubtedly binding of all the employees including the past, present and future. Under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is made clear that the settlement, which has been arrived in the course of conciliation proceedings will not only bind the parties to the settlement but in terms of the extended operation provided under Section 18(3)(d) of the Act, the settlement will cover even the persons, who were employed in the establishment and also the persons, who will subsequently get employed in the said establishment. In the light of the extended operation of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioners cannot have any scope to challenge the settlement. Further, the petitioners have made only the 4th respondent the management of the District Central Cooperative Bank as a party forgetting that the settlement has been signed on behalf of the workmen by four Trade Unions and they are also not parties.