The central legal point established in the judgment is that illegal appointments in Cooperative institutions are null and void, and the principles of natural justice may not apply in such cases. Additionally, the status of employees under specific employment acts must be considered in determining their entitlement to relief.

1. Even though this matter is listed for final disposal on several occasions, there was no representation for the first respondent. Finally, when the matter was listed on 18.11.2013 for hearing, it was directed to be posted under the caption 'for orders' today. Today also, there is no representation for the first respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this court.

2. The petitioner is the Management challenging the order of the second respondent dated 20.05.2003 in directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the first respondent in the post of Night Watchman without any backwages.

3. Short facts that lead to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner herein is a Co-operative institution constituted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and Rules framed thereunder. The Management of the petitioner Bank was vested with the elected Board of Directors until it was dissolved on 25.05.2001. The petitioner Bank sought approval of the cadre strength to its establishment and the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Virudhunagar through proceedings dated 25.04.1998 approved the cadre strength to the post of Secretary, Manager, Assistant, Sub-staff numbering 1, 3, 12 and 4 respectively. For making such appointment to the post:

(i) there must be an approved cadre strength and such vacancy fallen within the approved cadre strength has to be filled up with prior permission of the Deputy Registrar.

(ii) no appointment shall be made to any post without calling the list of eligible candidates from the employment exchange or adopting the other modes, if the employment exchange certifies that there were no other eligible candidates.

(iii) the candidates should possess all educational and other qualifications and the communal rotation has to be followed.

The Management of the petitioner society was not at liberty to make appointments as it pleases. The elected Board was dissolved on 25.05.2001 and the Special Officer was appointed for the administration of the petitioner society. Through circular dated 02.07.2001, the Registrar instructed all the Special Officers to rectify the irregularities in respect of appointments made by the erstwhile Boards in violation of the above norms. The audit report for the year 2000-01, referred the appointment of the first respondent as beyond the cadre strength. There was no approved vacancy to the post of Night Watchman. Therefore, the petitioner issued an order of dismissal on 10.10.2001 against the first respondent. An appeal was preferred by the first respondent before the second respondent u/s 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 challenging the termination. The second respondent allowed the appeal on 20.05.2003, which is impugned in this writ petition, whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the first respondent without backwages.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the post of night Watchman was not an approved post and there was no cadre strength to the said post as approved by the competent authority. Therefore, the appointment of the first respondent was illegal and consequently, the termination order passed against the first respondent ought not to have been interfered with by the second respondent. Learned counsel also submitted that the finding of the second respondent in respect of the cadre strength is against the facts and based on mere presumption and assumption, when the very appointment itself is illegal and in violation of all the norms. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no question of giving any opportunity of hearing to the first respondent, as his very appointment is illegal. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on L. Justine and Another vs. The Registrar of Coo