The court emphasized the wide powers vested with the Registrar under Section 181 of the Act 1983 and the importance of compliance with statutory obligations.

F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

n all these appeals, the issue relates to the validity of the impugned orders passed by the first respondent, dated 12.3.1999 and 8.4.1999 in and by which the first respondent directed the respective third respondents to cancel the 18(1) settlement based on which higher scales of pay was fixed and paid to the members of the appellants and also to recover such payments already made.

2. Before the learned single Judge, the appellants relied upon the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Tiruchirapalli Hiruthayapuram Co-op. Bank Employees Union v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruchirapalli 1992-I-LLJ-747. The learned single Judge, however, held that the issue was realty covered by the order dated, 1.10.2007 passed in W.P. No. 6189 of 2005 etc. The learned single Judge chose to rely upon the recent decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Zilla Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner and Others Ghaziabad Zilla Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner and Others Ghaziabad Zilla Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner and Others 2007-II-LLJ-239 (SC).

3. Before us, Mr. K. Premkumar, learned counsel for the appellants once again heavily relied upon the Division Bench decision in Tiruchirapalli Hlruthayapuram Co-op. Bank Employees Union Etc. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruchirapalli Tiruchirapalli Hlruthayapuram Co-op. Bank Employees Union Etc. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruchirapalli Tiruchirapalli Hlruthayapuram Co-op. Bank Employees Union Etc. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruchirapalli ( supra) and contended that having regard to the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act 1947), when the existence of the 18(1) settlement was not in dispute, if at all the respondents wanted to give a go-by to the terms of the settlement, they should have resorted to termination of the said settlement under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and after the successful termination of such settlement and restoration of the earlier pay scale, there would have been any scope for recovery.

4. According to the learned counsel, the Division Bench while setting aside similar such impugned orders issued earlier to nullify the settlement, gave liberty to the authorities to resort to the appropriate process available to them in law for setting aside such settlement. By referring to the said order of the Division 4 Bench, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that such liberty made available to the respondents was not to take recourse to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (for short Act 1983) but to the provisions of the 1947 Act alone.

5. As against the above submissions, Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader in his submissions drew our attention to Section 181 of the Act 1983 which gives powers to the Registrar to give directions in public interest and contended that such power once exercised by the Registrar and directions issued, the Cooperative Societies concerned are bound by such directions.

6. The learned Government Pleader also brought to our notice Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 (for short Rules 1988) and contended that the conditions of service of paid officers and servants of the Societies were all matters to which the Registrar was empowered to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 181 of the Act 1983 and issue necessary directions.

7. The learned Government Pleader brought to our notice such direction issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 181 of the Act 1983 dated 16.10.1997 and contended that the orders impugned in the writ petitions, dated 12.3.1999 and 8.4.1999 came to be issued by the respective first respondent only in pursuance of the said direction issued by the Registrar and therefore, the same were in accordance with law