CHENNAI PORT TRUST EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEE UNION REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY Vs. ADDITIONAL REGISTER OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHENNAI REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Chennai Port Trust Employees' Cooperative Bank Employees Union, aggrieved by the order, dated 4.12.2009, passed by the 1st respondent in Revision No. 5 of 2009, whereby, the Union's plea for revision of wages from 1.1.2007 and grant of arrears of wages for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008 has been negatived, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking to quash the same. The petitioner-Union approached the Additional Registrar, Chennai Region, by way of Revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), stating that whenever there is wage revision for the employees of the Chennai Port Trust, the same will have to be extended to the employees of the respondent-Bank, who are members of the petitioner-Union, as their pay scale is on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust; while so, even though the Port Trust revised the wages to its employees on 1.7.2008 with benefit of arrears from 1.1.2007 to 30.6.2008 and also paid arrears to its employees, the respondent-Bank, instead of implementing the revised pay scales as done by the Port Trust, had given effect of pay revision to its employees/members of the petitioner-Union only from October, 2008. Therefore, they prayed for a direction to pay the arrears of wages from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008 with interest at 18% per annum. The Additional Registrar rejected the said prayer holding that, as per Rule 149 of the TNCS Rules, the Bank should frame special bylaws governing the service conditions of its employees inter alia containing the pay scales of the employees with the prior approval of the Registrar and that, since such special by-laws have not been framed and the pay scales were not approved by the Registrar, the members of the petitioner's Union/employees of the respondent-Bank are not eligible for any pay revision without the approval of the Registrar. Another reason assigned in the said order is that the Government of Tamil Nadu, in G. O. Ms. No. 89, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Production Department, dated 16.5.2000, have prescribed the scales of pay and allowances to be adopted by the employees' Co-operative Societies in general and therefore, without the Society adopting the said G. O. , the petitioner-Union cannot ask for revision of pay on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust.

(2.) The present petition has been filed challenging the said order on the ground that the scale of pay of the employees working in the respondent/Bank is on par with the employees of the Chennai Port Trust and whenever there is wage revision for the employees of the Port Trust, the same will have to be extended to the employees of the respondent-Bank as well in tune with by-law No. 27 of the respondent Bank. Though the pay scales have been revised for the employees of the Port Trust with effect from 1.7.2008 with the benefit of arrears from 1.1.2007 to 30.6.2008, the respondent-Bank has implemented the new pay scale for the employees of the petitioner-union arbitrarily, only from 1.10.2008, as a result, the arrears of revised wages from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008 amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs has been withheld by the Bank. Implementation of any benefit including wage revision is subject to budget allocation by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank. That being so, when the respondent-Bank was making a profit of Rs. 97,45,710/- in the year 2001-2002 and the said profit had also increased to Rs. 1,18,68,297/- in the year 2007-08, there is no budgetary constraint to withhold the arrears of wage revision for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008. On that basis, while dealing with the present writ petition, this Court, by its order, dated 4.3.2010, allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to the Bank to implement the revision of wages to its employees from 1.1.2007 onwards and to pay the arrears of wages from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008. Challenging the said Order, the Bank filed W. A. No. 1320 of 2010 and the First Bench, by its order dated 21.9.2010, passed the following order:

(3.) Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that this Court had already decided the issue of revised scale of pay on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust, in its order dated, 10.9.2008, passed in W. P. No. 16965 of 2000. It is highlighted that, in the said case, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had declined to implement the settlement on the ground that the resolution was not signed by the President of the Bank, with the result, the matter was taken up to this Court by way of the above mentioned writ petition i. e. , W. P. No. 16965 of 2000, seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Credits), Chennai and to quash the order. This Court, by allowing the said writ petition, set aside the order impugned therein, holding that the said order was not justified. In the aforesaid Order, after elaborately dealing with the pros and cons of the issue, it has been finally held that the respondent-Bank was not justified in refusing to grant the revised scale of pay to the employees of the petitioner-Union on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust. Further, this Court considered various aspects including the one that the respondent Bank has been running on profit for the past 73 years and declaring maximum dividend to its members share capital every year and also, there was a settlement entered into between the petitioner-Union with the respondent-Bank as provided under Section 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25.9.2000 and the same has been approved by way of Resolution. Pointing out the same, it is submitted that when the proceedings passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Credit), Chennai, refusing to grant pay scales in accordance with the Settlement entered under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, were set aside by this Court, there is no justification for the contesting respondents to deny the benefit of revised pay scales to the employees of the Bank, who are members of the petitioner Union, on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust. It is further contended that, as per the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act reached on 25.9.2000, when the Bank granted revision of pay scale with effect from October, 2008, refusal to pay only the arrears from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008, is not only unjustified but also contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W. P. No. 16965 of 2000. On that basis, the petitioner has prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.