TAMIL NADU ALL DISTRICT AAVIN EMPLOYEES AND LABOURERS FEDERATION GENERAL SECRETARY SALEM Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR MILK PRODUCTION AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT MADHAVAM MILK COLONY MADHAVARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 14628/2008 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of Declaration declaring the Enbloc amendment made to the Special bye-laws relating to service conditions of the employees of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. , as approved and registered at the Office of the 3rd respondent in Endt. Rc. 30/08/e, dated 11. 01. 2008 in so far as they relate to the service conditions of the members of the petitioner as null and void.)These Writ Petitions are filed by the Tamil Nadu All District Aavin Employees and Labourers Federation and the staff Association of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk producers' Federation which are the trade unions.

(2.) THE relief sought for in these Writ Petitions are questioning the validity of the Special Bye-laws relating to the service conditions of employees of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited which were duly registered by the third respondent on 11. 1. 2008 under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 30 of 1983 insofar as it relates to the service conditions of the employees of the Association. The second respondent is a registered Co-operative Society. It deals with the procurement and supply of milk throughout the State of Tamil Nadu being the essential service. Before the formation of the second respondent, the procurement and supply of milk was carried out by the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation. At that time in respect of the employees of the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation there was a statewide common seniority. After the second respondent was constituted as a society under the Co-operative Societies Act, autonomous status has been given to the District Unions. In respect of the District Unions the second respondent Society would have powers only in relation to the staff who are under the common cadre as per G. O. Ms. No. 249, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 10. 11. 1997. Therefore, the second respondent has no power in respect of District Unions except in cases where the staff are at the level of Assistant General Manager which are under the common cadre service. After 20 years, the second respondent has framed new bye-laws to amend the existing service conditions. It is seen that a High Level Committee was constituted by the Government in G. O. (D ). No. 18, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (M. P. II), dated 31. 1. 2007 and the said Committee has submitted its report on 26. 09. 2007 to the Government in respect of the bye-laws for the employees of the second respondent. It is seen that the petitioners have made representations to claim that they should also participate before the High Level Committee since common amendment which may be effected to the bye-laws would affect the service conditions of the members of the Federation. That apart, the amended bye-laws are questioned also on the ground that they violate Section 9a of the Industrial Disputes Act since no prior notice has been given before altering the conditions. It is also questioned on the ground that the general body of the second respondent has not been called for as required under section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 30 of 1983 Act, apart from questioning on the basis of legitimate expectation and absence of consultative process. It is the further case of the petitioners that the amended bye-laws also are violative in the sense that they have not fixed the cadre strength, proper age for recruitment as well as retirement was not fixed, leave benefits have been taken away and there is possibility for stagnation since promotion opportunities were affected by the new amendment apart from the introduction of 1:1 for promotion from the employees and appointment by direct recruitment and the provisions relating to voluntary recruitment is not clear.

(3.) THE second respondent has filed its counter affidavit. While admitting that the Government has appointed a High Level Committee in order to have uniform service conditions for the employees of the second respondent, it states that after the second respondent came into existence, there are three tier system in respect of administration. The first one is under the Village level Primary Co-operative Societies, the second one is District level Co-operative Milk Producers' Union and the third one is State level Federation. In respect of District level if they are above the common cadre, the second respondent has jurisdiction and the common cadre is above the post of District Manager. It is stated that the High Level Committee has submitted its report on 26. 9. 2007 and the second respondent has approved the draft bye-laws by the resolution No. 572 dated 19. 12. 2007. It is the case of the second respondent that when the second respondent has exercised its statutory authority as per the resolution dated 19. 12. 2007, without challenging the same, the petitioners cannot be permitted to approach this Court questioning the validity of the bye-laws. It is thereafter, the Government has approved the Special bye-laws in G. O. (Ms.)No. 6, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (M. P. II) Department, dated 10. 1. 2008 and the Government has also exempted from the purview of Rule 9 (1) of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 by exercising its power under Section 170 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. It is also specifically stated that the High Level Committee in fact considered the representations of various persons and it was only after considering those representations, the bye-laws came to be passed and ultimately, registered with the third respondent on 11. 01. 2008. It is the further case of the second respondent that the writ petitions as such are not maintainable. It is also stated that when once the said bye-laws have been approved by the 3rd respondent on 11. 1. 2008, as it has come into effect, there is no question of challenging the same. It is not as if the petitioners have no right of appeal. They can file appeal under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act or they can raise a dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The various allegations about the infirmities of the new bye-laws have been answered by the second respondent stating that in fact the bye-laws have fixed the cadre strength and the age of regularisation as well as retirement has been fixed adopting the rule applicable to the Government employees to the employees of the Co-operative Societies also and the new policy of 1:1 introduced for the purpose of giving promotion, recruitment, to reduce stagnation and give employment opportunities and to bring new blood into the second respondent which deals with the supply of essential commodities. It is also stated that the retirement age has been increased to 60 years and the bye-laws have been implemented from 11. 1. 2008.