Special officers appointed under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, do not have the jurisdiction to nullify settlements arrived at under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Nainar Sundaram, Ag. CJ.

There are certain broad features common to these cases. There may be features peculiar and distinct to some of these cases, but they have no relevance at all for purpose of deciding the question that gets posed before us. There were settlements arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', fitting in with Sections 12(3) and 18(1) of the Act, as the cases may be. All the formalities regarding such settlements, as per the pre-requisites of the Act, have been satisfied. The settlements were between the concerned co-operative societies on the one hand and their employees on the other. The settlements concerned the wages structures for the employees in the Cooperative societies. In the settlements, the Cooperative societies were represented by the office bearers of the elected bodies who were in charge of the management of the co-operative societies. Only subsequently, the elected bodies have been dislodged and special officers have come into the picture. The contesting respondents raise ascertain queries concerning the propriety and validity of the settlements, but those queries are besides the provisions of the Act and they are in the other fields. It is claimed that the settlement were arrived at, in derogation of the specific instructions adumbrated in the circulars issued by the concerned Registrars under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 30 of 1983, hereinafter referred to as Act 30 of 1983. A stand is also taken that these settlements are the result of collusion between those who represented the cause of the management of the Societies and those who represented the cause of the employees. It is further contended that the settlements were not conducive to the financial interests of the Co-operative Societies and if they are to be implemented, they will undermine the financial stability of the Co-operative Societies. There is also a contention raised that the settlements are derogatory to the By-laws of the Co-operative Societies. What did happen in the present cases is that by a stroke of pen, by the issuance of the proceedings impugned in the writ petition, there is an endeavor to unilaterally nullify the settlements and ignore them. It would have been a different matter if the respondents have taken up cudgels by resorting to any process of law that may be available to them to achieve this end. That they have not done. It is true that the relevant point of time when the settlements were arrived at, the Societies were manned by elected bodies and those officer bearers of the elected bodies represented the cause of the management of the Co-operative Societies in arriving at the settlements. These has been a subsequent charge by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies (Appointment of Special Officers) Act 30 of 1991 coming into force and the Special Officers getting hold of the management of the Co-operative Societies. But the tenure of the settlements has not yet lapsed and this is the admitted position. There is no gainsaying that the settlements arrived at shall be binding on the successors-in office of the Co-operative Societies. It will not be proper for this Court in the present proceeding to express any opinion with reference to the factors put forth by the respondents as vitiating the settlements and give an adjudication over them. We are only called upon to go into the legal propriety of the proceedings impugned in these cases whereby the settlements are sought to be nullified. Whatever be the nature of the factors alleged as vitiating the settlements, can the respondents by the proceedings impugned, give an adjudication over the settlement and unilaterally nullify them, is the question that alone comes up for consideration by us. Suffice it to point out that what the respondents have done is not only unorthodox, but also not fitting