The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of Special Bye-laws under Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules 1988 and the compliance of Bye-laws with statutory provisions.

1. All these writ petitions challenge the validity of the Government Orders, approving the Special Bye-laws framed under Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules 1988, regulating the service conditions of the employees of various District Central Cooperative Banks.

2. I have heard Mr. R. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel Mr. A.S. Thambusamy and Mr. R. Rajaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel, Mrs. G.Thilakavathy, Mr. M.R. Raghavan, Mr. M.S. Palanisamy and Mr. P.S. Sivashanmuga Sundaram learned counsel appearing for the Banks and Ms. T.P. Savitha, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents in all WPs.

3. When the correctness of a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.86, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 12.3.2001, validating all appointments to Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks, was put to test in a batch of writ petitions, a Division Bench of this Court issued directions in L.Justine and Another vs. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies {2002 (4) CTC 385}, to Societies where cadre strength had not been fixed, to adopt Special Bye-laws in conformity with Rule 149(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules 1988. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies was directed to issue a Circular to all Societies, calling upon them to adopt Special Bye-laws.

4. In pursuance of the said directions, the District Central Cooperative Banks of Sivagangai, Erode, Pudukottai, Kancheepuram, Vellore, Coimbatore, Villupuram, Madurai, Virudhunagar, Tanjore, Dharmapuri, Salem, Kumbakonam, Tiruvannamalai and Cuddalore, adopted Special Bye-laws and sent the same to the Government for approval. By independent orders, passed in G.O.Ms.No.241, dated 2.6.2004, G.O.Ms.No.238, dated 31.5.2004, G.O.Ms.No.222, dated 31.5.2004, G.O.Ms.No.231, dated 31.5.2004, G.O.Ms.No.233, dated 31.5.2004, G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 31.5.2004, G.O.Ms.No.236, dated 31.5.2004, G.O.Ms.No.221, dated 31.5.2004, G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 2.6.2004, G.O.Ms.No.226, dated 31.5.2004, G.O.Ms.No.234, dated 31.5.2004, G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 15.3.2005, G.O.Ms.No.228, dated 31.5.2004, G.O.Ms.No.225, dated 31.5.2004 and G.O.Ms.No.230, dated 31.5.2004, in Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, the Government approved the Special Bye-laws for each of those District Central Cooperative Banks.

5. Contending that some of the terms and conditions of service stipulated in those Bye-laws, in so far as their application to the serving employees are concerned, are contrary to the directions of this Court, contrary to the settlements reached under the Industrial Disputes Act and tend to alter the existing service conditions, the Associations/Unions of employees of these Cooperative Banks have come up with the present writ petitions.

FIRST CONTENTION:

6. After the decision in L.Justine was rendered by the Division Bench on 24.10.2002, another batch of writ petitions in W.P.No. 16190 of 1995 batch, was taken up by the Division Bench for disposal. In the said batch, the question as to the propriety of the Special Officers of Cooperative Societies, in adopting the Model Bye-laws framed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, arose. The grievance projected by the employees in the said batch of cases, was that there cannot be an unsavoury uniformity in the Bye-laws adopted by all Societies. The said batch of cases was disposed of by an order dated 9.12.2002. Since it is of relevance, the operative portion is extracted as follows:-

"There are several kinds of Cooperative Societies with varied functions and it may require some bye-laws to suit the situation of a particular Society or Societies having regard to the nature of functions/business. The variance may be with regard to the cadre strength and any other matter and, to say concisely, all the clauses in the bye-laws cannot be the same and similar. May be, the general clauses tally, but special features may vary.