THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22000 OF 2001 BETWEEN: Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Central Banks’ Employees’ Association, B.1100, Hyderabad, Rep. by its General Secretary. …. PETITIONER And 1. Executive Director, the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Banks Association, regd.No.288/1967, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.7: Sri Polavarapu Srinivas The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioner, viz., A.P. Cooperative Central Bank Employees Association, has filed this writ petition in the representative capacity, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to continue payment of wages including dearness allowance to the employees as per the terms of settlement dated 15.06.1997, arrived at under the provisions of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’) without altering or varying the terms of the said settlement unilaterally by declaring the circular of the 1st respondent in CSA- 9/2001, dated 13.10.2001, as illegal. The case of the petitioner-association is that a negotiated settlement was reached between the petitioner-association and the A.P. Cooperative Central Bank Employees Association represented by the Executive Director on 15.06.1997 under Section 18 of the I.D. Act. Under the said settlement various issues, such as, classification of Banks, categorization of service pay-scales, allowances including dearness allowance etc., were addressed and a settlement was reached on the said issues. The payment of wages and dearness allowance is also one of the issues in respect of which settlement was reached. Subsequent to the said settlement dated 15.06.1997, amendment was brought to Section 116 (C) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) vesting the power in a society to fix the staffing pattern, qualifications, pay-scales and other allowances for its employees with the prior approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies subject to the condition that expenditure towards pay and allowances of the employees should not exceed 2% of the working capital or 30% of the gross profit, interest accruals in a year whichever is less. In view of the said amendment, the 1st respondent issued the impugned circular dated 13.10.2001 stating that certain District Cooperative Societies were not eligible for incurring additional financial commitment as the cost of management of these Banks has already exceeded 2% of the working capital for the year 1999-2000. The said circular is stated to have been issued pursuant to the letter of the 2nd respondent dated 22.01.2001. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner-association has filed this writ petition, contending that the settlement reached between the parties is in force and the same has not been superseded by another settlement, and therefore the amended provisions of Section 116 (C) of the Act cannot debar the implementation of the said settlement. It is stated that on a similar controversy on the application of Section 116 (C) of the Act, the Apex Court passed the following order in Civil Appeal No.8913 of 2003 dated 7.11.2003. ”it is not necessary to decide this issue in view of the concession on the part of the respondents Nos.5-26, who are all the cooperative banks, that the amendments do not run counter to the provisions of the settlement and that the settlement was not sought to be terminated by reason of the impugned amendment. A similar statement has been made by the apex bank which has also stated that the settlement between the Management and the appellant Association was in no way sought to be disturbed by the impugned amendment. A similar stand has been taken by the respondent- state. In this view of the matter the issue raised is really academic and the appeal is accordingly disposed of by recording the aforesaid statement of the respondents.” The learned counsel Sri Polavarapu Srinivas appearing for the 7th respondent-Bank fairly submits that the said commitment made before the Supreme Court is still in force. The learned counsel also fairly submits that some of the Banks including the 7th respondent- Bank has been following the terms of settlement. In view of the above orders of the Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-Banks have already granted the relief to the members of the petitioner-association, recording the same, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 25th November, 2010 Js.