Settlement arrived cannot be set aside by Registrar.

1. In all these writ petitions, the question that arises for consideration is, whether the respondents are entitled to take action against the Society or the Board of Directors to nullify the settlement deeds arrived at by them with the Banks.

2. In all these cases, petitioners contend that whenever the employees make a payment taking into consideration the best interest of the society, and also taking into consideration the financial position, a settlement was arrived at under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After settlement is arrived at, a resolution is also passed by the Board of Management to implement the settlement. When such resolutions are passed and wages are paid on the basis of the settlement, respondents are issuing proceedings with an intention to nullify the effect of the settlement either by passing any order that they intend to invoke the proceedings under Sec.80 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 or the extra amount paid to the employees is returned to the members in management, or initiate proceedings under Sec.153 of the Act. According to petitioners, respondents have no jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings when it is a lawful settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. Even though some of the matters have been admitted and stay was ordered in the year 1991 itself, till date no counter has been filed.

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that the point to be decided is already covered by a decision of this Court, and appropriate orders may be passed taking into consideration the said decision.

5. After having heard learned counsel on both sides, I feel that the facts of all these writ petitions are covered by decision of this Court reported in Tiruchirapalli Hirudayapuram Co-operative Bank Employees Union, etc. etc. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchirapalli Tiruchirapalli Hirudayapuram Co-operative Bank Employees Union, etc. etc. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchirapalli Tiruchirapalli Hirudayapuram Co-operative Bank Employees Union, etc. etc. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchirapalli (1992)1 L.L.J. 747which is also a case coming under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. In that case also, the scope of the settlement under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act arrived at between the management and the employees was sought to be set at naught by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The same was challenged before a Division Bench, in a batch of writ petitions, and in that case, it was held thus:

“…It is true that at the relevant point of time when the settlements were arrived at, the societies were manned by elected bodies and those office-bearers of the elected bodies represented the cause of the management of the Co-operative Societies in arriving at the settlements. There has been a subsequent change 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 Cooperative 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 proceedings 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 vitiated the settlements, can the respondents by the proceedings impugned, give an adjudication over the settlements 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