O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed as against the order of the third respondent in SC 18 of 2000-1, dated 06.08.2001, under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the order of the Co-operative Tribunal, Virudhunagar District in CMACS No.25 of 2002.

2.The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner was functioning as elected President of RMD 3 Thiruchuli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and Land Development Bank Ltd, Reddiapatti and the other petitioners were the elected directors of the Board of Management of the said Bank. The third respondent initiated surcharge proceedings as against these petitioners, under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, based on the inspection report of the Sub Registrar of Co-operative Societies that pay revision made by these petitioners by virtue of settlement is without any authority of law and it was also detected that a sum of Rs.2,98,377/- was paid in excess than the eligible amount. The order of the third respondent was challenged by the petitioners in CMACS No.25 of 2002 before the District Judge of Co-operative Tribunal, Virudhunagar District and the same was dismissed, by order dated 20.12.2007. Both the orders are impugned in this writ petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the surcharge proceedings initiated by the third respondent is based on the inspection report, dated 08.11.1999. But, the said report was not served upon the petitioners and the entire proceedings was conducted behind their back. He further submits that the petitioners were found fault by the third respondent that the petitioners have paid excess amount to some of the employees, under Section 18(1) settlement, which is incorrect. According to the petitioners, revision of scale of pay was made only based on the byelaw of the Society. The learned counsel has also relied on byelaw 25(6), which reads as follows:-

“(vi) to prescribe from time to time the strength of the establishment of the bank and scale of pay and allowances admissible to each member thereof subject to the budget allotment sanctioned by the General Body; provided however the pay and allowances admissible to the Manager shall be as fixed by the Registrar”

4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, revision has been made under Section 18(1) of Industrial Dispute Act, when the work of five employees has been shared by four employees. According to him, the Secretary of the Society retired on 31.03.1998 and the existing four employees alone shared the work of the Secretary at that relevant point of time. He further submits that the salary revision given to the employees by the Management of the Organization cannot be construed as loss to the Organization. When there is no loss to the Organization, the initiation of surcharge proceedings itself is not maintainable. He further submits that 18(1) settlement, dated 05.05.1999 was also ratified by the General Body of the Society. He also relied on the following citations in order to substantiate his contentions.

 Order of the Division Bench of this Court, Tiruchirapalli Hirudayapuram Co-operative Bank Employees Union etc., Vs The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchirapalli etc., reported in 1992 (1) LLJ 747.

 S.Jina Chandran and others Vs.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras and others, reported in 1999 MLJ Page 431  Thamizhaga Kooturavu Veetru Vasathi Sanangalin Seyalalargal Association, Madurai Vs.Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Madras, reported in (2007) 7 MLJ 277  H.T.Natarajn and others Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nilgiris District & another, reported in (2009) 2 MLJ

479.

 S.Venkataraman Vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thanjavur & others, reported in (1978) 1 MLJ 284.

 Ramadevi Vs The Special Officer, Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills, Vadapudupet, Vellur District and others, reported in (2016) 4 L.W. 452.

5.Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupat