SOUTH ARCOT DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR D M S COMPOUND TEYNAMPET MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-association has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent-bank to forbear from altering the conditions of service of workmen relating to filling up the post of Manager incharge of taluk administration without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner-association entered into several settlements with the second respondent-management. By settlement dated 15.9.1982 signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act it was agreed as follows:- It is mutually agreed that a special allowance of Rs.50 per month shall be paid to Field Managers Gr.I who are posted to be incharge of Taluk level administration. Posting of Field Managers Gr.I to be incharge of Taluks will be strictly on seniority basis. Subsequent to the said settlement the petitioner-association raised disputes. The Government in G.O.Ms. No. 621 Labour Department dated 7.4.1988 have referred the issues for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal at Madras. Issue No. 42, according to the petitioner, related to recruitment and promotion policy. The said dispute has been taken on file as I.D. No. 25 of 1988 and the matter is pending. In the order dated 6.6.1989 the second respondent directed the field manager to handover the charge to the Co-operative Society Registrar recruited from the Government Department. The petitioner-association protested the same in and by the letter dated 2.8.1989. Thereafter the second respondent issued a notice purporting to be under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the same date namely 19.8.1989. The petitioner-association protested against the said notice and requested the second respondent not to resort to such a change in service condition in view of the binding nature of the earlier settlement and in view of the fact that the dispute itself is pending consideration of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in I.D. No. 25 of 1988. So aggrieved the petitioner-association has filed the above writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further relied on the decision of the Division Bench in R. Varadharajan v. Special Officer, K.C.L.D. Bank, 1995 (1) L.L.N. 265 in which the petitioner therein filed the writ petition against the co-operative society, and the Division Bench of this court had an occasion to deal with the issue regarding the maintainability of writ petition against the co-operative society. While allowing the writ petition and dismissing the writ Appeals, the learned Judges, following the decision in Rohtas Industries Ltd., v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, 1976 (1) L.L.N. 165 in which it was held that the scope of Art.226 of the Constitution of India was wide enough to affect even a private individual, have held as follows:- In this case we do not find any difficulty in applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court as referred to above, as, admittedly, the impugned order was passed without observing the principles of natural justice. THErefore, on that simple ground, we are inclined to allow the writ petition, and accordingly, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 31st July 1991, is quashed. THE writ petition is allowed. No costs.