Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
P. Eswaramoorthy
Versus
R.J.B. Leoraj
W.P. Nos. 17802 of 1994, 10161 of 1995, 14680 of 1996, 6219, 6220, 20964, 21003 of 2000 and 19704 of 2001 and W.P.M.P. No. 27073 of 1994 in W. P. No. 17802 of 1994, W.P.M.P. No. 9296 of 2000 in W. P. No. 6219 of 2000, 9297 and 25315 of 2004 in W.P. No. 6220 of 2000, W.P.M.P. No. 30485 of 2000 in W. P. No. 20964 of 2000 and W.P.M.P. No. 30557 of 2000 in W.P. No. 21003 of 2000
Decided on : 10-06-2008
Industrial Disputes Act - Service Conditions of Employees of Cooperative Societies - Section 90, Section 152, Section 153 - The judgment discusses the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Cooperative Societies Act in matters relating to service conditions of employees of Cooperative Societies. It also interprets the provisions of Section 90, Section 152, and Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The court emphasizes that disputes between a servant of a Co-operative Society and its Management are not covered under Section 90, and employees can approach the Registrar or any competent authority under Section 153 to revise orders passed by the Co-operative Society relating to disciplinary action, promotion, or seniority. The judgment also clarifies that there is no implied ouster of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to deal with similar matters if disputes are raised before them by workmen or employees covered by those provisions. The decision in Somasundaram v. Liyakat Ali [1997 (1) CTC 4] is deemed not to be a good law, and the judgment of K. Radhakrishnan v. Additional Registrar [2000 (II) CTC 147] upholding the right of revision under Section 153 is considered to have laid the correct position of law.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple writ petitions filed by employees and Cooperative Societies challenging orders passed under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The dispute revolved around seniority, promotion, and disciplinary actions. The court also considered the conflict between decisions rendered by different judges on the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Cooperative Societies Act in similar matters.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that disputes between a servant of a Co-operative Society and its Management are not covered under Section 90, and employees can approach the Registrar or any competent authority under Section 153 to revise orders passed by the Co-operative Society relating to disciplinary action, promotion, or seniority. The court also clarified that there is no implied ouster of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to deal with similar matters if disputes are raised before them by workmen or employees covered by those provisions. The judgment also deemed the decision in Somasundaram v. Liyakat Ali [1997 (1) CTC 4] not to be a good law and upheld the judgment of K. Radhakrishnan v. Additional Registrar [2000 (II) CTC 147] as laying the correct position of law.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Cooperative Societies Act in matters relating to service conditions of employees of Cooperative Societies, the interpretation of Section 90, Section 152, and Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and the conflict between decisions rendered by different judges on the same subject matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principles established in the judgment include the interpretation of Section 90, Section 152, and Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and the clarification that disputes between a servant of a Co-operative Society and its Management are not covered under Section 90. The judgment also emphasizes that employees can approach the Registrar or any competent authority under Section 153 to revise orders passed by the Co-operative Society relating to disciplinary action, promotion, or seniority. Additionally, the court clarified that there is no implied ouster of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to deal with similar matters if disputes are raised before them by workmen or employees covered by those provisions.
Final Decision: W.P. No. 14680 of 1996 stands dismissed, and the first respondent is directed to dispose of the revision petition within twelve weeks. All other writ petitions, including W.P. Nos. 17802 of 1994, 10161 of 1995, 6219, 6220, 20964 and 21003 of 2000, and 19704 of 2001, stand allowed, and the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act are set aside as they were made without jurisdiction. There is no order as to costs, and all the connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand dismissed.
K. Chandru, J.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. W.P. No. 17802 of 1994:
1. When this matter came up for disposal before the learned single Judge on 37. 2002, the learned single Judge framed two questions and directed the matter to be placed before the Honble Chief Justice for posting the same before an appropriate Division Bench. Accordingly, the matter was posted before this Division Bench on the orders of the Honble Chief Justice. The two questions are as follows:-
1. In matters relating to service conditions of employees of Cooperative Societies, whether the Industrial Disputes Act (Special Law) or the Cooperative Societies Act (General Law) is applicable?
2. Whether an employee of a Cooperative Society can invoke the provisions of Section 90 and /or Section 152 / 153 (Appeal / Revision) for redressal of his service grievances?
2. The reason for framing the two issues were an apparent conflict between the decisions rendered by this Court and referred by the learned Judge in his order are as follows:-
(i) In Somasundaram v. Liyakat Ali [1997 (1) CTC 4], S.S. Subramani, J. has held that orders regarding inter-se seniority between employees of Co-operative Societies is not an order passed under the Co-operative Societies Act, such seniority cannot be decided and the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 156 is not attracted in matters relating to determination of inter-se seniority of employees of Co-operative Societies and no remedy is available under the Industrial Act. As such, Civil Suit is maintainable.
(ii) In K. Radhakrishnan v. Additional Registrar [2000 (II) CTC 147], P.Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) has held that seniority is part of service conditions of employees which may be construed as an action under Special bye-laws of the Union and a revision under Section 153 of the Co-operative Societies Act is maintainable.
(iii) In The Management of Madras Atomic Power Project Employees Consumers (Cooperative Stores Limited, Kalpakkam rep. by its Special Officer v. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal) Madras – 6 and 2 others [2000 (III) CTC 738], P.Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) has held that disciplinary action against paid servant of society is not a dispute under Section 90 or not one "touching business" of the society."
3. When this matter came to be listed, at the request of the members of the bar, several other writ petitions were also tagged on along with this writ petition on the ground that the answer to questions raised in this writ petition will have a bearing on the other writ petitions.
4. Before venturing into the legal issues raised in these writ petitions, it is necessary to briefly refer to the factual aspect of each of the writ petition.
1. In W.P. No. 17802 of 1994, there was a dispute between the petitioner and the contesting respondent regarding seniority and promotion and when the seniority list dated 111. 1984 was published. Aggrieved by the said list, the first respondent filed a petition under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 in July 1991. The said dispute was taken on file by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore (11th respondent) and the said dispute was allowed by an order dated 38. 1994. As against the said order, the Co-operative Society filed an appeal u/s 152 before the Co-operative Tribunal. But even during the pendency of the same, the aggrieved private respondents moved this Court challenging the proceedings of the Arbitrator. This writ petition was admitted on 210. 1994.
2. W.P. No. 10161 of 1995 is filed by three employees of the Co-operative Societies against the order of the first respondent Deputy Registrar in entertaining a petition under Section 90 of the Co-operative Societies Act and setting aside the promotion granted in favour of respondents 2 to 4. This writ petition was admitted on 08. 1995.
3. W.P. No. 6219 of 2000 is filed by an employee
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
