IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 1055 of 2001(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES' UNION, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY E.M. SUBASH. BY ADV. SRI. V.G. ARUN SRI. T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PB NO. 2, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI- 685 602, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 1731/2001 IN OP NO. 1055/2001 A. DISMISSED 22/01/2008. SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE RULES RELATING TO LEAVE FARE CONCESSION (VACATION ALLOWANCE). EXT.P2. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. EST/LFC/4/84-85 DT. 6/09/99 BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE R2. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE SUB RULES RELATING TO LEAVE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. EST/LFC/4/2000-01 DT. 30/09/2000 OF THE R2. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. CB(3) 43252/98/K.DIS DT. 19/08/99 OF THE R1. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE SUB RULES RELATING TO LEAVE FARE CONCESSION SENT FOR APPROVAL. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. EM(1) 15028/2000 DT. 5/5/00 OF THE R1. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. CB(3) 41040/99 DT. 27/5/00 OF THE R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== O.P.No.1055 of 2001 ================================== Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT “CR” The short issue that arises for decision in this writ petition is as to whether the granting of leave travel allowance as part of recreation facilities, by a Co-operative Society, in its wisdom, to its employees, could be interfered with by the Government on the ground that they have not accepted the recommendation of a committee constituted by the Government to look into the affairs of the employees of Co-operative Societies, to wit, the Sri.C.V.Nair committee. 2. Going by the uncontroverted averments in the writ petition, the permanent employees of the second respondent had been enjoying the leave travel allowance as part of recreation facilities OP1055/2001 -:2:- in terms of what was being offered in that regard by the employer. In the course of time, Ext.P7 has been issued essentially interfering with the enjoyment of such facilities by the employees. As a consequence, the rectification report of the Bank has also been rejected as per Ext.P8. Hence this writ petition by the employees' union. 3. Rule 189 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”, providing for remuneration and allowances enjoins that the scale of pay of different categories of posts shall be in terms of Appendix III of those rules and that the employees shall be eligible for Dearness Allowance at the rates allowed to Government employees and still further that certain allowances are to be extended to the physically handicapped employees in terms of Rule 189(4) of the Rules. There is no provision in those rules or the Kerala Co-operative Societies OP1055/2001 -:3:- Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, prohibiting or regulating the grant of recreation facilities including leave travel allowance. Rule 196 of the Rules provides that the Society shall frame and implement necessary bye-laws regarding the duties and responsibilities of the employees and such bye-laws cannot be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or other relevant enactment. A search in the Act and Rules would show that the compulsory allowances as per the statutory rules are intended to achieve the socialistic goals in the Constitution. This is easily discernible from a provision like Rule 191, which provides for medical allowance at the rate that is notified by the Government from time to time. 4. The learned senior Government Pleader pointed out Rule 180, which enjoins that no Society shall do any act which is not expressly provided for by the bye-laws of such Society, without the OP1055/2001 -:4:- previous sanction of the Registrar of the Society. However, it is the undisputed situation that the second respondent had included the provision for recreation facilities in its service regulations and such inclusion has been approved by the Registrar. That apart, Rule 180 falls under Chapter XIV and is the miscellaneous provision that governs a Society, while Chapter XV is pithly made in relation to the establishment, which Chapter deals with different aspects touching the service conditions. It would be inappropriate to read Rule 180 as one that would have an overriding power to insist that any allowance could be paid by the employer Co-operative Society only with the previous express sanction of the Registrar. Rule 180 only states that no Society shall do any act which is not expressly provided for by the bye- laws. The bye-laws cannot contain the different allowances, remuneration etc. because, those are matters that would fall to be guided by other OP1055/2001 -:5:- statutory rules which have to be noticed from Chapter XV of the Rules. If Rule 180 is read to include a power to insist that no Society could grant any allowance not provided for or not expressly excluded under Chapter XV to any of its employees, except with the previous sanction of the Registrar, it would work against the democratic concept of a Co-operative Society and of its existence as an independent establishment governed by the statutory Act and Rules. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned decisions are quashed and this writ petition is allowed, as prayed for. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl. OP1055/2001 -:6:- Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== O.P.No.1055 of 2001 ================================== JUDGMENT Dated:22-1-2008