Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4379
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
Pondicherry Co-operative Urban Bank Employees Welfare Union Rep.by its General Secretary S. Balasoupramanian
Versus
The Registrar The Co-operative Department Government of Pondicherry & Another
W.P. No.19712 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided On :Decided on : 04-11-2011
For the Petitioner - V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents - M/s. N. Mala, Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry).
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents had the power and authority to increase the retirement age under the Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 and subsidiary regulations.
Headnote:
RETIREMENT AGE - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, Section 81(1), Section 33(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 81(1) and Section 33(2) of the Act, which empowered the first respondent to issue directions in the public interest and the administrator to exercise the functions of the committee subject to the control of the Registrar. The court also interpreted the subsidiary regulations governing the service conditions of the employees and the power of the administrator to pass resolutions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a union representing employees, challenged the decision to enhance the retirement age from 58 to 60 years by the respondents. The respondents had passed a resolution to increase the retirement age, which was approved by the first respondent. The petitioner contended that the decision was made without considering their objections and without the approval of the general body.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had the power and authority to increase the retirement age under the Act and subsidiary regulations. It held that the objections of the petitioner were not substantial and that the writ petition was misconceived. The court also noted that the writ petition was not maintainable without impleading the proposed affected employees.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority of the respondents to enhance the retirement age, the necessity of obtaining approval from the general body, and the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Act and subsidiary regulations, which conferred power on the respondents to make decisions regarding the retirement age. It emphasized that the objections raised by the petitioner were not substantial and that the writ petition was not maintainable without impleading the affected employees.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
1. The petitioner who is the Union representing some of the employees of the second respondent has come forward to file this writ petition, challenging the decision made by the respondents to enhance the age of retirement of the employees from 58 to 60 years.
Facts in brief:
2. The first respondent being the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by taking into consideration of the decision of the Central Government issued a direction on 11.06.1999 exercising his power under Section 81(1) of the Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act) stating that all the Co-operative Societies in the Union Territory of Pondicherry are required to enhance the retirement age of the employees from 58 to 60 years. The various Co-operative Societies were asked to pass separate resolutions and send proposals to amend their subsidiary regulation governing the service conditions of the employees.
3. One of the trade Union of the Pondicherry Co-operative Urban Bank raised a demand for increasing the age of retirement. A resolution was passed by the second respondent on 17.08.2010 enhancing the age limit from 58 to 60 years. After passing of the resolution, the same was sent to the first respondent for approval. From the year 1995 onwards, the Society is under the control of the second respondent. It is to be seen that the earlier existing subsidiary regulation governing the service conditions of the employees were framed by the second respondent in the year 1998.
4. Rule 35 of the service regulation governs the employees retirement age. As per the said rule, an employee shall retire at the age of 58, except the last grade employees for whom the age of retirement is 60. After the passing of the resolution, which was sent to the first respondent for approval, the first respondent, in turn, approved the same on 25.08.2010. The petitioner filed a writ petition on 26.08.2010 seeking a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from altering the service conditions of the employees of the second respondent Society. Thereafter, an application was filed for amendment in M.P.No.2 of 2010 on 29.09.2010, which was ordered by this Court on 08.10.2010.
Submissions of the petitioner:
5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that, after knowing the filing of the writ petition, the approval has been given by the first respondent and the entire records have been tampered with. According to the learned senior counsel, altering the age of retirement by increasing 2 years is a major policy decision, which can be taken only by the Board of Directors. There is no basis for increasing the age and the second respondent being the administer cannot take the role of the elected Board of Directors. The objections of the petitioner have not been considered before passing the resolution. Having taken as a stand in the earlier proceedings to the effect that the enhancement retirement age is not required, it is not open to the respondents to enhance the same. As per the subsidiary regulations, the second respondent does not have the power or authority to modify the service conditions. The decision made by the second respondent as approved by the first respondent is liable to be set aside for not getting the approval of the general body. The approval given by the first respondent is one without jurisdiction, as he has got no power to do so.
6. The fact that a letter was issued by the second respondent in Memorandum dated 31.08.2010 in favour of one N.Purushothaman intimating his retirement on 30.09.2010 would show that the records have been tampered as the approval given by the first respondent dated 25.08.2010 has not been taken note of. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel has made reliance upon the following judgments:
1. RAGHAVAN NAIR vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES [1998 (2) KLT 1068
2. JT. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KERALA vs. T.A.KUTTA
