MANAGEMENT, SHOZHAVANDAN CO-OPERATIVE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by the petitioner Management against the award whereby the Labour Court set aside the order of retrenchment and directed the petitioner to reinstate the second respondent with continuity of service.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that it is a Co-operative Institution duly constituted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies is the ultimate authority in the administration of all the Co-operative Institutions. The predominant object of the petitioner bank is to extend credit and such other facilities to its members to augment their agricultural produce. The elected Board of Directors is to run the Management in accordance with the powers vested on it under the said Act and Rules as well as the registered Bye-laws of the bank and registered special Bye-laws relating to the service conditions of the staff of the bank. As per various directions and circulars issued by the Registrar, the appointments should be made only within the cadre strength that too with prior approval and permission of the Deputy Registrar. Vacancies, if any, should be filled up from those surplus/retrenched employees of similar Banks of that region or from the statewide list. Only after exhausting the entire waiting list, recruitment has to be made to any post by calling the list of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange, or by adopting other modes, if the Employment Exchange certifies that there were no eligible candidates. Communal rotation also to be followed. The Elected Board of the petitioner came to power on 01.11.1996. It took steps to get the cadre strength approved by the authorities. Accordingly, the Regional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, through his proceedings dated 18.11.1997, sanctioned the cadre strength, with one Secretary, six Supervisors and one Office Assistant. The Joint Registrar further directed therein that new appointments should be made by adopting the redeployment. Contrary to the above norms, the Board engaged the second respondent on daily wage basis from 29.04.1999 and again from 11.12.1999 on consolidated wage basis as Supervisor. His appointment was neither made in a vacancy within the approved cadre strength nor by properly following the recruitment procedures. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai, ordered for an inspection under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Consequently, a report filed under Section 82 revealed that the appointment of the second respondent and a few others were contrary to the recruitment procedure. Therefore, proceedings under Section 87 of the said Act was initiated against the Board by serving a notice to show-cause as to why Sur-charge Proceedings should not be initiated against the Board. The Joint Registrar, Madurai also issued a notice under Section 88 of the said Act proposing super-session of the Board for the said irregularities. Anticipating stringent action against the board, the then President of the Board passed an order on 07.02.2001, terminating the service of the second respondent and four others. Aggrieved against the said order, the second respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. The appellate authority set aside the order of termination on the ground that the one month notice or pay in lieu of such notice was not given. Therefore, the second respondent was reinstated into service on 27.03.2001 with back-wages. The elected board was dissolved and the Special Officer was appointed on 25.05.2001. The Special Officer was constrained to rectify the mistakes and defects committed by the previous regime. Therefore, the Special Officer retrenched the second respondent and similarly placed others from service, by his order dated 01.09.2001. The second respondent preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.19313 of 2001 against the retrenchment and this Court directed him to raise an industrial dispute and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, the second respondent raised the industrial dispute in I.D.No.108 of 2002 and the same was allowed by the Labour Court as stated supra. Hence, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as on 18.11.1997, the approved cadre strength of the petitioner society in the cadre of Supervisor was only 6. When the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor on 29.04.1999, his appointment was beyond such cadre strength, as the petitioner's appointment was in the seventh position. Even assuming that the appointment was within the cadre strength, such appointment is bad as the same was not made through redeployment as contemplated by various directions and circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He further contended that as the appointment of the second respondent was not made through Employment Exchange the same is against Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. He further contended that no communal rotation was also followed and the Labour Court did not consider any of the aspects and proceeded to allow the matter only on the ground that on the date of passing of the award, there was a vacancy available and the same can be taken into consideration for accommodating the second respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the vacancy position as on the date of the award cannot be taken into consideration. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the special Bye-laws have to incorporate the procedure contemplated under Rule 149. Whether there was any special Bye-laws or not, the recruitment should be made only by following Rule 149 and such procedure cannot be ignored or deviated. He also submitted that proceedings of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Madurai, dated 28.02.2000 and 08.09.2000 would show and prove that the appointment of the second respondent was beyond the cadre strength. The learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court had wrongly concluded that the appointment of the second respondent was within the cadre strength.