COIMBATORE DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION COIMBATORE 9 Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is from an order of Ramakrishnan, J. THE 2nd respondent is a co-operative society governed by the provisions of the Madras co-operative Societies Act, 1932. THE bye-laws of the society provided for payment of bonus up to a ceiling of three months'pay. But the employees raised an industrial dispute demanding additional bonus for the year 1962-63. THE industrial Tribunal, Madras, found that the demand was not justified. Two points were urged before it one of which was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in view of S. 51 of the Madras co-operative Societies Act. But the Tribunal overruled this contention, THE other was that the by-law of the society had the force of law and, therefore, it was binding as between the management and the workmen of the society. THE Tribunal pointed out that the employees of the bank were governed by the rules and by-laws framed under the authority of the statute. On that view it was satisfied that under the existing rules and by-laws a bonus of three months' pay was permissible and in the circumstances that should be the bonus being the employees were entitled to. On a petition by the workmen which Ramakrishnan, J. dismissed, the learned Judge was of the view that the bye-laws of the society which prescribed a ceiling for payment of bonus which an integral part of the construction of the co-operative society, the society was bound to act up to the bye-laws which had the force of law. On that view, the learned Judge declined to interfere and hence this appeal by the workmen of the society.

(2.) THAT the bye-law of a co-operative society does not have the force of law has now been authoritatively held by Co-operative Central bank v. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, The bye-laws are framed by a society under the powers given by the statutory provisions and the rules made thereunder. Even so, the bye-laws are like the Articles of Association of a company which have never been held to have the force of law. It had been held in a number of cases that conditions of service for industrials laid down by the standing orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)Act, 1946, which were binding between the employers and the employees of the industry governed by those standing orders, did not have the force of law so as to be binding on the Industrial tribunal, as adjudicating an industrial dispute. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is derived from the Industrial disputes Act and the Tribunal, as was held by the Supreme Court, has right even to vary contracts of service between the employer and the employees, which jurisdiction can never be exercised by a civil Court or a Registrar acting under the Co-operative Societies Act. In view of this clear pronouncement by the Supreme Court it follows that the view of the Tribunal which found favour with the learned Judge is not correct. For the management it is contended that the Tribunal in the circumstances considered that payment of bonus within the ceiling prescribed by the bye-laws was justified. We do not think that the tribunal dealt with the matter in that manner. Its view was that as the bye-law prescribing a ceiling for payment of bonus had the force of law, that should be the bonus which the employees should be held to be entitled.