Orissa High Court Upholds 24-Year-Old Industrial Award, Dismisses Bank's Challenge on Technical Grounds

Cuttack, Odisha – In a significant ruling that brings a 24-year-long legal battle to a close, the Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., thereby confirming a 2001 Industrial Tribunal award that granted enhanced pay and benefits to its 'Cadre Secretaries'.

The division bench, comprising Justice K.R. Mohapatra and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra , rejected the bank's primary contention that the award was unenforceable due to the non-inclusion of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (RCS) as a party to the dispute.

Background of the Dispute

The case dates back to 1994 when the Cadre Sampadak Sangha, a registered trade union representing the Cadre Secretaries of the Aska Co-operative Central Bank, raised an industrial dispute. Their demands included: - Revision of pay scale to be at par with the bank's Junior Assistants. - Increased Travelling Allowance (T.A.) from ₹8 to ₹35 per day. - Extra remuneration for managing more than one society. - Regularization of ad-hoc employees. - Payment of bonus for the accounting years 1986-89.

Following a failure in conciliation, the Odisha government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. On October 6, 2001, the Tribunal passed an award largely in favour of the union, directing the bank to provide pay parity with Junior Assistants, grant the requested T.A., pay an extra ₹150 per month for dual charges, and regularize the remaining ad-hoc employees.

Arguments Before the High Court

The Aska Co-operative Central Bank challenged this award, primarily on two grounds:

• Petitioner's (Bank's) Arguments: The bank, represented by Senior Advocate Sourya Sundar Das, argued that the award was in-executable. They contended that the service conditions of Cadre Secretaries were governed by Cadre Rules formulated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (RCS). Since the RCS was not a party to the proceedings, the bank had no authority to implement the award without the RCS's approval. They also claimed there was no evidence on record to prove that the duties of Cadre Secretaries and Junior Assistants were similar.

• Respondent's (Union's) Arguments: Represented by Advocate Shaktidutta Tripathy, the union countered that the bank had never raised the objection of non-joinder of the RCS before the Industrial Tribunal. They pointed out that the bank itself had failed to forward their demands to the RCS for approval. The union also highlighted that during the pendency of the petition, the bank, pursuant to a government order, had already accepted the Cadre Secretaries as its own employees (Grade-VI-A) with a revised pay scale from July 1, 2003, thereby weakening its own case.

High Court's Rationale and Decision

The High Court meticulously analyzed the record and found the bank's arguments unconvincing. The judgment authored by Justice S.K. Mishra noted several key points:

• Waiver of Objection: The Court observed that the bank had not pleaded the non-joinder of the RCS before the Tribunal, thus it could not be raised as a primary ground for challenge at the writ stage.
  
  
• Precedents: The Tribunal had relied on awards passed in similar cases involving other co-operative banks (Balasore, Angul, Nayagarh), where identical benefits were granted and implemented, even though the RCS was not a party in those cases either.
  
  
• Subsequent Conduct of the Bank: The Court gave significant weight to the fact that in 2003, the bank itself had resolved to treat the Cadre Secretaries as its Grade-VI-A employees and granted them a revised pay scale. This action was seen as an implicit acknowledgment of their status and claims.
  
  
• No Perversity in Award: The bench found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings. It held that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence on record regarding the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Cadre Secretaries vis-à-vis Junior Assistants to arrive at its decision on pay parity.

The Court held, "...the stand taken by the First Party-Management that the Award passed by learned Tribunal is non-implementable in absence of Register, Cooperative Societies, Odisha as party to the said case is unsustainable."

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding no infirmity in the 2001 award, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the Tribunal's decision. The judgment effectively ends the prolonged litigation and directs the implementation of the service benefits awarded to the Cadre Secretaries. The ruling underscores the principle that technical objections like non-joinder of parties cannot be raised at a belated stage to frustrate a valid industrial award, especially when the employer's own subsequent actions contradict its legal position.