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

2025 Supreme(Cal) 148

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ.
Birbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Paresh Kumar Mukherjee & Ors.- Respondents
MAT 1701 of 2024
Decided On : 29-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Saikat Banerjee, Senior Advocate Mr. Arnab Ray, Advocate Mr. Shirsho Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, Senior Advocate Mr. Joydeep Roy, Advocate, Mr. Kishore Mukherjee, Advocate

The resolution limiting leave encashment to 180 days prevails over the rule allowing 300 days for superannuated employees of a cooperative credit structure entity.

Headnote:(A) West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 - Sections 134A, 134B, 134C - West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011 - Rule 106 - Leave encashment - Superannuated employees of the Cooperative Society entitled to leave encashment of 300 days as per the Rules of 2011 - However, the appellants, being a cooperative credit structure entity, are governed by their own resolution dated June 11, 2001, limiting leave encashment to 180 days - The learned Single Judge's order granting 300 days leave encashment was set aside. (Paras 2, 36, 37)

(B) Statutory Interpretation - The court emphasized that statutory provisions must be given effect regardless of perceived distress resulting from their operation, and sympathy cannot override statutory mandates. (Paras 34, 35)

Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by a Cooperative Society against a judgment granting superannuated employees leave encashment of 300 days, while the appellants contended that their resolution limited this to 180 days.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the resolution dated June 11, 2001 was binding and that the private respondents were entitled to leave encashment as per this resolution.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants or the private respondents were governed by the resolution dated June 11, 2001 regarding leave encashment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the resolution dated June 11, 2001 was valid and binding, and the private respondents were entitled to leave encashment for a maximum of 180 days.

Result: The impugned judgment was set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Appeal is at the behest of a Cooperative Society and directed against the judgment and order dated May 15, 2024, passed in WPA 13722 of 2021.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge held that, superannuated employees of the appellants is entitled to leave encashment of 300 days in view of the prescriptions made with regard thereto, under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, seven persons approached the Writ Court for grant of leave encashment as part and parcel of their recruitment benefits. He submits that, all seven writ petitioners superannuated subsequent to February 1, 2013.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants draws the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 134A, 134B and 134C of Chapter XIIIA of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006. He submits that, the appellant No.1 before us is a Cooperative Credit Structure Entity within the meaning of Section 134B of the Act of 2006. He submits that, consequently, as a cooperative credit structure entity, in terms of Section 134C(2)(d), his clients are entitled to formulate policy regarding the personnel including compensation to be paid to the staff of the appellant No.1.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, in view of Section 134A of the Act of 2006, the provisions relating to Chapter XIIIA of the Act of 2006 will prevail. Consequently, it cannot be disputed that the appellants as cooperative credit structure entity will be entitled to formulate policy regarding personnel and compensation receivable by such employees.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the appellants formulated the compensation with regard to leave encashment by a resolution dated June 11, 2001. He draws the attention of the Court to such resolution. He submits that, such resolution prescribes leave encashment not exceeding 180 days on superannuation.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the resolution dated June 11, 2001 was taken when the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and the Rules framed thereunder being West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 were under operation. He draws the attention of the Court to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1987 and submits that, such Rule does not provide for any compensation with regard to leave encashment. Nonetheless, the appellants took a resolution dated June 11, 2001 allowing leave encashment for 180 days. All employees of the appellants are governed by the resolution dated June 11, 2001 relating to leave encashment.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants draws the attention of the Court to the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011 and submits that, Rule 106 thereof provides for the method of recruitment and condition of service of the officers and employees of Cooperative Societies other than cooperative credit structure entities. Therefore, according to him, since appellants are placed outside the purview of Rule 106 of the Rules of 2011, the prescriptions of such Rule do not apply for a co-operative credit structure entity of the appellant No.1.

9. He submits that, amendment to Rule 106 was introduced with effect from February 1, 2013. Such amendment excluded cooperative credit structure entity from the operation of Rule 106 of the Rules of 2011. Appellant No.1 being a cooperative credit structure entity, it stood excluded from the purview of Rule 106 of the Rules of 2011 by virtue of amendment thereto on February 1, 2013.

10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing the appellants submits that, each of the writ petitioners superannuated subsequent to February 1, 2013. Therefore, in view of the fact that, the appellant No.1 as a cooperative credit structure entity, being entitled to prescribe a compensation for leave encashment did so by resolution dated June 11, 2001, which r

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top