SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 936

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
Mahadeb Pandit & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 26384 of 2022
Decided on : 20-07-2023.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. N.C. Bihani, Adv., Ms. Sahina Sumi, Adv., Mr. Soumya Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Srijan Nayak, Adv., Ms. Rituparna Maitra, Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, Adv., Mr. Joydip Roy, Mr. Arnab Ray, Adv.

Disputes relating to the conditions of service of employees of a cooperative society, including disputes regarding promotion, can be adjudicated by the Registrar under Section 102 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, and petitioners must exhaust this alternative remedy before seeking recourse to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 2006 - Section 102 - Promotion of Employees - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, employees of a cooperative bank, challenged a notice setting the cut-off date for promotion eligibility. The bank argued that the petitioners should have sought an alternative remedy under Section 102(1)(c) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, as the dispute related to the bank's "affairs."

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy under Section 102(1)(c) of the 2006 Act and that they should have exhausted this remedy before approaching the Writ Court. The court found that the dispute related to the conditions of service, which could be adjudicated by the Registrar under Section 102 of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the dispute regarding promotion of employees is a matter concerning the "affairs" of a cooperative society and thus falls within the ambit of Section 102 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006? 2. Whether the petitioners were required to exhaust the alternative remedy provided under Section 102 of the Act before approaching the Writ Court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "affairs" in Section 102 of the 2006 Act to include disputes relating to the conditions of service of employees, unless specifically governed by by-laws. 2. The court held that the petitioners' dispute regarding promotion was a matter concerning the conditions of service and thus fell within the ambit of Section 102 of the Act. 3. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before resorting to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy under Section 102 of the 2006 Act and that they should have exhausted this remedy before approaching the Writ Court.

JUDGMENT :

Lapita Banerji, J.

The petitioners have challenged a notice dated September 7, 2022, whereby the cut off date for assessing the eligibility of the incumbents for promotion was held to be September 30, 2021. The petitioners are working in Grade-2, Scale-I posts of the Bankura District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.

2. Mr. Ray, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank challenges the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 102(1)(c) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It was submitted that the issue of granting promotion by a cooperative society to its employee comes within the scope of the word ‘affairs’ even if, not within the scope of the words “management” or “business” in terms of Section 102(1) of 2006 Act.

3. He referred to a decision dated December 7, 2020 passed by an Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this High Court in WPA 9964 of 2020 (Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Union vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.).

4. The dispute in that case related to alteration of ‘nomenclature’ of the posts without consultation with the employees. Therefore, the promotional avenue of the Branch Managers to the post of Deputy Managers was seriously prejudiced. The feeder post of Junior Manager was equated to that of the Branch Managers. On the point of maintainability the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench held that the existing remedy under Section 102 before the Registrar can definitely be availed by the petitioners to remedy their grievances.

5. He relied on a decision of a Special Bench of this Hon’ble Court reported in AIR 1990 Cal 380 (Anjan Choudhury v. Anandaneer Cooperative Registered Housing Society and Others) for the contention that any dispute relating to the appointment or termination of service which in effect are conditions of service of the Officers/Employees of the society would relate to the ‘affairs’ of the society, even if, not necessarily concerned with its “business”. Therefore, he submitted that matters concerning promotion of employees being conditions of service was hit by the bar of Section 102 of the 2006 Act. Since, there was an existence of a statutory alternative remedy the petitioners should have explored the said avenue, at the first instance.

6. Next, he relied on a decision reported in AIR 2021 Gauhati 163 (Hindustan Paper Cooperation Ltd Officers and Supervisors’ Association, Morigaon, Assam vs. Union of India), for the proposition that when Legislature had deliberately omitted certain words or definition from a clause, it is not given to the Court to include that in a statute. He submits that only the disputes regarding “disciplinary action” of the employees have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the learned Registrar and therefore the other conditions of service cannot be excluded from the purview of his jurisdiction.

7. Mr. Bihani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners countered the argument of Mr. Ray, by citing several Judgments. He refers to a Special Bench Judgment reported in (1969) 2 SCC 43 (Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. & Others vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and Others) to contend that service conditions and promotions have been taken out from the purview of the jurisdiction of the Registrar. In that case, Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was referred to. Section 61 of the said Act reads hereinunder:

    61. Disputes which may be referred to the Registrar:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the' time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid employee of the society, arises-

(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members And deceased members; or

(b) between a member

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top