All appointments are to be made in accordance with the recruitment rules in force, and the benefit of regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted in violation of recruitment rules.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.16 of 2011 dated 21.08.2014 quash the same.)

1. The Award dated 21.08.2014 passed in I.D.No.16 of 2011 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner is Z.376, Nannilam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent was not appointed as a Salesman of the petitioner society on 01.11.2002. He was engaged as a daily wage employee on need basis. In view of the fact that he was not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment rules in force, the petitioner is not entitled for any permanent absorption or reinstatement. There is no order of appointment was submitted before the Labour Court nor the 2nd respondent established that he was appointed by following the due process of law and in consonance with the recruitment rules in force.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the irregular and illegal appointments in Cooperative Societies were adjudicated by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of L.Justine and another Vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai – 10, reported in 2003 (1) LLJ 284 and 2002 (4) CTC 385, which was taken by way of an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.Umarani V. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, reported in (2005) 1 MLJ 6(SC), the Courts held that the irregular appointees are not entitled for regularization or permanent absorption and only if their initial appointments were made in accordance with the procedures contemplated, then alone the benefit of regularization or permanent absorption can be given. Accordingly, the process of identifying the regular appointments were undertaken by the competent authorities of the Cooperative department and those employees, who were appointed in accordance with the rules, their services were regularized and the services of all other irregular employees were dispensed with.

4. Citing the above judgments, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the Labour Court ought not to have considered the case of the 2nd respondent employee in view of the fact that no documents were produced, established that the 2nd respondent was appointed by following the procedures as contemplated under the rules.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner society is a Cooperative Society, registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and the said Act will prevail over the general law. Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules contemplates the procedures for appointments and the service conditions. Pursuant to Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, Special By-laws were approved by the competent authorities of the Cooperative department. Thus, appointments are to be made strictly in compliance with the recruitments enunciated in Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules.

6. This being the legal principles to be followed, the Labour Court proceeded on the basis that the writ petitioner was engaged more than 240 days of service and therefore, he is entitled for permanent absorption. When the Hon’ble Division Bench passed an order dealing with irregular appointments in Cooperative Societies, which was confirmed by the Apex Court of India in the case of A.Umarani V. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, reported in (2005) 1 MLJ 6(SC), Labour Court cannot take a contra view than that of the principles settled by the Apex Court, which became the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

7. This apart, the learned Single Judge of this Court also had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in the case of Special Officer, Palayamkottai Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cour