Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1998 Supreme(Mad) 990

High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice K. Govindarajan
South Arcot District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Employees Association, rep. by its President, Cuddalore
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Madras and another
W.P. No. 12887 of 1989 and W.M.P. No. 18530 of 1989
Decided On : 28-07-1998

Mr. K. Chandru, Senior Counsel, for Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel, for Mr. S.M. Loganathan, for Respondent No. 2. and Mr. V. Selvanayagam, Government Advocate, for Respondent No. 1

A writ petition is maintainable against a private party, including a co-operative society, in certain circumstances, such as when there is a monstrosity of the situation or a violation of fundamental rights or mandatory provisions of the law.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 9A, 12(3), 19(2), 23(C), 29, 33(1) - SETTLEMENT - ALTERATION OF SERVICE CONDITIONS - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION - MONSTROSITY OF SITUATION - JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-association challenged the second respondent-bank's decision to alter the service conditions of workmen relating to filling up the post of Manager incharge of taluk administration without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner relied on a settlement entered into under Section 12(3) of the Act, which provided for a special allowance and seniority-based posting of Field Managers Gr.I to be incharge of Taluks. The second respondent had issued a notice purporting to be under Section 9A of the Act, and the petitioner contended that this was in violation of the settlement and the pending dispute before the Industrial Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the writ petition was maintainable against the co-operative society, despite the Full Bench decision in Ganesan, K. v. The Special Officer, Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills and 2 others, as the monstrosity of the situation warranted the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court relied on several precedents, including V. Pandurangan v. S.O.S.R.Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., R. Varadharajan v. Special Officer, K.C.L.D. Bank, C. Marianandam v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others, and Madras Labour Union v. BinnyLtd., which established the principles for the maintainability of writ petitions against private parties in certain circumstances.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the co-operative society? 2. Whether the second respondent can alter the service conditions mentioned in the earlier agreement without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable against the co-operative society, despite the Full Bench decision in Ganesan, K. v. The Special Officer, Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills and 2 others, as the monstrosity of the situation warranted the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court relied on several precedents, including V. Pandurangan v. S.O.S.R.Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., R. Varadharajan v. Special Officer, K.C.L.D. Bank, C. Marianandam v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others, and Madras Labour Union v. BinnyLtd., which established the principles for the maintainability of writ petitions against private parties in certain circumstances. 2. The court held that the second respondent could not alter the service conditions mentioned in the earlier agreement until it is altered or modified or replaced by another agreement or otherwise in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the second respondent was restrained from altering the service conditions mentioned in the earlier agreement until it is altered or modified or replaced by another agreement or otherwise in accordance with law.

Judgment :

1. The petitioner-association has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent-bank to forbear from altering the conditions of service of workmen relating to filling up the post of Manager incharge of taluk administration without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner-association entered into several settlements with the second respondent-management. By settlement dated 19. 1982 signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act it was agreed as follows:- It is mutually agreed that a special allowance of Rs.50 per month shall be paid to Field Managers Gr.I who are posted to be incharge of Taluk level administration. Posting of Field Managers Gr.I to be incharge of Taluks will be strictly on seniority basis. Subsequent to the said settlement the petitioner-association raised disputes. The Government in G.O.Ms. No. 621 Labour Department dated 4. 1988 have referred the issues for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal at Madras. Issue No. 42, according to the petitioner, related to recruitment and promotion policy. The said dispute has been taken on file as I.D. No. 25 of 1988 and the matter is pending. In the order dated 6. 1989 the second respondent directed the field manager to handover the charge to the Co-operative Society Registrar recruited from the Government Department. The petitioner-association protested the same in and by the letter dated 8. 1989. Thereafter the second respondent issued a notice purporting to be under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the same date namely 18. 1989. The petitioner-association protested against the said notice and requested the second respondent not to resort to such a change in service condition in view of the binding nature of the earlier settlement and in view of the fact that the dispute itself is pending consideration of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in I.D. No. 25 of 1988. So aggrieved the petitioner-association has filed the above writ petition.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition as the same has been filed against the Co- operative Society. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision of the Full Bench in Ganesan, K. v. The Special Officer, Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills and 2 others, 1994 W.L.R. 509 in which the Full Bench of this Court has held that the writ petition cannot be maintained against the co-operative society. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while the rights accrued under the Industrial Disputes Act are violated, this court has categorically held in so many decisions that by exercising powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India this court can interfere to safeguard the interest of the aggrieved workman.

4. In order to overcome the hurdle in the writ petition as also the incompetency alleged in seeking the relief under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Chandru, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on a number of decisions. Though the learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon several decisions, I am not referring to all the cases for the reason that some of them have laid down the same proposition of law and so I am referring only some of the decisions to decide the issue in question.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the decision in V. Pandurangan v. S.O.S.R.Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., 1995 (1) L.L.N. 263. D. Raju, J., as he then was, in the said decision, has held that the writ is maintainable challenging the order passed by the second respondent and to prevent the first respondent from acting on the said order. In the said case, the second respondent/Deputy Registrar ordered recovery of the bonus paid to the petitioners therein and the first respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document