Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO
A.P.Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Guntur Dt.Milk Producers Cooperative Union Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-16-89
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 12(3) - SETTLEMENT - BINDING ON PARTIES - VIOLATION OF SETTLEMENT - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - MAINTAINABILITY - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - WHETHER AN AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - JUDICIAL REVIEW - BYE-LAWS OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - WHETHER HAVE STATUTORY FORCE - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-union, Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. Workers Union, represented by its General Secretary, filed a writ petition challenging the legality of a circular issued by the respondent, Guntur District Milk Producers Co-operative Union Limited (Sangam Dairy), adjusting the seniority of NMRs (Nominal Muster Rolls) on the basis of the number of days they worked from 1/09/1986 to 30/06/1987. The union contended that the basis for preparation of the seniority list was the number of days the NMRs worked between 1/01/1980 and 23/03/1985, and that basis was arbitrarily and without any authority of law altered by the impugned circular. The union also filed a second writ petition seeking a declaration for regularisation of the services of two NMRs and that without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, their services should not be terminated.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent-society, Sangam Dairy, was an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, its actions could be judicially reviewed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court further held that the settlement dated 23/03/1985 between the management of the society and the two recognized registered workers unions was binding on all the parties by virtue of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the respondent-society was under a statutory obligation to implement the terms of the settlement so long as it was in force. The court also held that the impugned circular dated 31/07/1987, which was contrary to the terms of the settlement, was illegal and void.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent-society, Sangam Dairy, was an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the settlement dated 23/03/1985 between the management of the society and the two recognized registered workers unions was binding on all the parties? 3. Whether the respondent-society was under a statutory obligation to implement the terms of the settlement? 4. Whether the impugned circular dated 31/07/1987, which was contrary to the terms of the settlement, was illegal and void?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent-society, Sangam Dairy, was an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India based on the following factors: - The society was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. - The society was declared as a public utility service. - The society received almost full financial aid from the State Government. - The managerial and supervisory staff of the society were liable for transfer from one society to another and their service conditions were governed by the regulations framed by the Register of Co-operative Societies under Section 116-A(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. - The society had no control over the transfer or conditions of service of its officers. - Any disobedience of the society to comply with the orders issued by the Register or the Government would result in the supersessions of the Board of Management under Section 34 of the Act. 2. The court held that the settlement dated 23/03/1985 between the management of the society and the two recognized registered workers unions was binding on all the parties by virtue of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The court held that the respondent-society was under a statutory obligation to implement the terms of the settlement so long as it was in force. 4. The court held that the impugned circular dated 31/07/1987, which was contrary to the terms of the settlement, was illegal and void.
Final Decision: The court allowed the first writ petition filed by the petitioner-union and set aside the impugned circular dated 31/07/1987. The court dismissed the second writ petition filed by the two NMRs seeking regularisation of their services.
( 1 ) THIS common judgment will dispose of both the writ petitions as they are interconnected. The petitioner in WP No. 7004/88 is the Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. Workers Union represented by its General Secretary and the respondent is the Guntur District Milk Producers Co-operative Union Limited (Sangam Dairy) represented by its General Manager. On 23/03/1985, a settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, was reached between the management of the Sangam Dairy and the petitioner-union and another union by the name Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, both registered unions. The Sangam Dairy was declared as a public utility service as stated in the memorandum of settlement. The settlement reached between the parties covers nine matters; paragraph 4 which concerns with the seniority list of workers employed on Nominal Muster Rolls (NMRs) reads as follows :"the management have also agreed to prepare the seniority list of the workers working on nominal muster rolls before the end of April, 1985, and fix up to notice board under copy to the Unions. Preference would be given to the NMR workers in the matter of any regular appointments in the Dairy provided they fulfil the requisite qualifications as per Rules. "besides the parties to the settlement, the memorandum was also signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, the Conciliation Officer, as a result of whose endeavours the settlement could be reached. The seniority list of NMRs who worked during the period from 1/01/1980 to 23/03/1985 was communicated on 6/01/1986 to the petitioner-Union and the employees associations attached to the Sangam Dairy. Subsequently, by circular No. 4145/a1-2/87, dates 3/07/1987, the seniority of NMRs was adjusted on the basis of the number of days the NMRs worked for the period from 1/09/1986 to 30/06/1987 and it is also mentioned in the circular that as per the above seniority the NMRs would be appointed depending upon the exigencies of the work. Except those whose services were terminated due to specific reasons, all the other NMRs will continue to figure in the seniority list, the circular stated. The petitioner-Union is challenging the legality of the circular dated 31/07/1987 contending that the basis for preparation of the seniority list was the number of days the NMRs worked between 1/01/1980 and 23/03/1985, and that basis was arbitrarily and without any authority of law altered by the impugned circular under which the principle for fixation of seniority is the number of days the NMRs worked from 1/09/1986 to 30/07/1987. The settlement dated 23/03/1985 did not contemplate year-wise seniority lists; what it envisaged was the seniority list of NMRs drawn up on the basis of the number of days they worked during the period from 1/01/1980 to 2 3/03/1985 and that list is intended to be acted upon until such time all the NMRS are regularly absorbed or the basis is altered by another settlement. The incident of the number of days the MNRs worked during the period 1/09/1986 to 30/06/1987 as contemplated by the impugned circular should not result in disturbing the earlier seniority list. The petitioner asserts that the respondent is "the State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its entire administrative and financial control is vested in the State Government and, therefore, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution The petitioner is, therefore, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the impugned circular is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently the services of the NMRs should not be terminated based on the said circular. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent a preliminary jurisdictional question is raised; the respondent is only a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act in the year 1978 and the composition of its membership comprises th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
