IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31627 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK STAFF ASSOCIATION, REGD. NO.44/86, THRISSUR. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERL SECRETARY, SAJAN C. GEORGE 2. M.R. UNNIKRISHNAN, CLERK-CASHIER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., WADAKKANCHERRY BRANCH, P.O.WADAKKANCHERRY. BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.K.P.MANOJ (KODUNGALOOR) SRI. MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE: KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR-680001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R1 BY ADV.SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH, (GP) R2 BY ADV.SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kp C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.31627 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is an association representing the workers under the second respondent. The second petitioner is an employee of the second respondent-Bank and he is also a member of the fist petitioner Association. This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to quash Exts.P1, P2 and P4 circulars and for a declaration that Exts.P1, P2 and P4 circulars are issued without authority and therefore, invalid. The further prayer of the petitioners is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 expeditiously, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Ext.P1 is the circular dated 5.8.2006 whereby the second respondent abdicated the authority to sanction loans up to `1,00,000/- and entrusted the same to a loan Sanction Committee consisting of concerned Branch Manager and the Senior Accountant, based on a resolution dated 1.8.2006. Consequently, the practice that was being followed hitherto based on the bye-laws of the second respondent viz., recommending the loan by the concerned Branch Manager and sanctioning the same by the Board of Directors, has to be W.P.(C) NO.31627/2010 2 discontinued even without a corresponding amendment to the bye-law, it is contended. As per Ext.P2 circular, based on another resolution dated 7.7.2010, the principle of decentralisation was further extended and the concerned branch managers were given permission to distribute the loan sanctioning power among other employees as well. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P2, the first petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 representation before the second respondent. In the meanwhile, the second respondent has issued Ext.P4 circular dated 7.10.10 instructing all branches of the Bank to implement Ext.P2 with effect from 18.10.2010. 2. Admittedly, raising grievances against Exts.P1, P2 and P4, the first petitioner approached the first respondent through Ext.P5 representation. The petitioners contend that Rule 5 of the Co-operative Societies Rules provides for bye-laws for every co-operative institution and as per Rule 196, the duties and responsibilities of employees not inconsistent with the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and other Act relevant to it are to be specified in the bye-law. In the said circumstances, the petitioners would contend that as long as Exts.P1, P2 and P4 are issued without bringing in corresponding amendment in the bye-law of the second respondent, they are not having any legal sanctity W.P.(C) NO.31627/2010 3 and they are non-est in the eye of law. It is further contended that the employees in the second respondent Bank are broadly divided into managerial and non-managerial staff. The cumulative effect of Exts.P1, P2 and P4 is that the duties and liabilities attached to the managerial posts have to be shared by the employees and the non-managerial staff. That apart, it is contended that the decisions thereunder, if implemented, would go against the better interest of the Society. According to the petitioners, in view of the said aspects involved in the matter, Ext.P5 is sustainable before the first respondent and therefore, the inaction on the part of the first respondent will be nothing but disuse of his power. When Rule 176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules clothes the first respondent with the authority to rescind a resolution, the first respondent is bound to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders thereon, it is contended. According to the petitioners, they approached this Court apprehending that even prior to the consideration of Ext.P5 by the first respondent, the second respondent would implement Exts.P1, P2 and P4 on 18.10.2010. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent. Resisting the contentions raised by the petitioner, W.P.(C) NO.31627/2010 4 the learned Government Pleader as also the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. That apart, it is contended that the grievances raised as per Ext.P5 is not one falling within the purview of Rule 176 of the Co- operative Societies Rules and therefore, Ext.P1 cannot be directed to be considered by the first respondent by invoking the powers under Rule 176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. According to them, the subject matter falls under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. But, the contention of the petitioners is that introduction of Ext.P1, P2 and P4 would disturb the peace in the society and their implementation would be detrimental to the better interest of the society. They would further contend that the issues raised in Ext.P5 are matters to be looked into by the first respondent by invoking the power under Rule 176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. Ext.P1 circular was issued as early as on 5.8.2006. The petitioners are aggrieved by the extension of the policy of decentralisation introduced as per Ext.P1 to the employees in the non-managerial cadre through Ext.P2. In that context, it has to be noted that the contention of the petitioners is that the employees of a Co-operative Society are classified into two. A scanning of the contentions in this Writ Petition and W.P.(C) NO.31627/2010 5 the grievances ventilated through Exts.P3 and P5 would suggest that the main grievance of the petitioners is with respect to the alteration of the service conditions of the employees under the second respondent Bank. Of course, they carried a contention that if Exts.P1, P2 and P4 are permitted to be implemented, it would create an unpleasant atmosphere and would ultimately work out detrimental to the interest of the society. The question is whether the aforesaid contention would bring the issue involved in this case within the purview of Rule 176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The tenor of Exts.P1, P2 and P4 is that they were issued with the intention to ensure certain duties and liabilities attached to the managerial posts are sought to be shared and directed to be discharged by the employees not belonging to the said cadre. The rival contentions would undoubtedly reveal that the matter in issue is essentially pertaining to alteration of service conditions. In that context, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even if it is a matter touching the service conditions, the question whether such alteration of service conditions could be effected without bringing in appropriate amendment to the bye- laws is also a matter that requires consideration. The learned Government Pleader submitted that even that question can be gone into by the W.P.(C) NO.31627/2010 6 arbitration court while considering the issues under clause (d) of Sub- section 2 of Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the remedy of the petitioners lies under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. When once it is found that the matter in issue constitute a dispute in connection with the employment, the petitioners have to be relegated to resort to the remedy available under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. I am fortified in my view by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Ravindran v. State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLT 558). The upshot of the above discussions is that this Writ Petition is not maintainable. Subject to the above observations and without prejudice to the petitioners' right to resort to the remedy available under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.31627/2010 7 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.31627/2010 8