IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.02.2011 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.18090 of 2010 & M.P.No.2 of 2010 1 M.C.KUPPAN 2 N.CHINNAVAN 3 P.MUNUSAMY 4 T.M.RAMASAMY 5 S.GANAPATHI [ PETITIONERS ] Vs 1 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CO-OPERATION FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. 2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES E.V.R.SALAI, CHENNAI. 3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DHARMAPURI REGION DHARMAPURI. 4 THE DHARMAPURI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD REP. BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER DHARMAPURI. 5 THE LABOUR OFFICER BYRAPPA STREET KRISHNAGIRI-635 001. [ RESPONDENTS ] Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 4th respondent relating to the impugned wage settlement dated 16.06.2010 bearing Ref.R.C.No.A/369/2010 quash the same in as much as it extends the pay revision only with effect from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 01.01.2006 and consequently direct the respondents to extend the same to the petitioners herein. For Petitioner :: Mr.Sai Krishnan for M/s. Sai, Bharath and Ilan For Respondents :: Mr.M.S.Palanisamy for R4 Not ready for R1 to R3 O R D E R These five writ petitioners, who are retired employees of the 4th respondent Dharmapuri District Central Cooperative Bank, filed the present Writ Petition challenging the Settlement dated 16.6.2010 signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the 4th respondent and four Trade Unions, namely, the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Bank Employees Association, Chennai, Dharmapuri District Cooperative Sector Bank Employees Union, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District Cooperative Employees Munnetra Sangam and Dharmapuri District Central Cooperative Bank Anna Employees' Union in respect of the wages and other service conditions. 2. The grievance of the petitioners who are retired from service long years before (8 years before) was that under the terms of settlement in paragraph No.2, the wage benefits were given so that the employees will get 7% or 14% as the existing basic pay plus personal pay if any plus DA as on 1.1.2006. It is also indicated that from the sum so arrived, the revised basic pay and revised DA will be segregated and the employees will get 7% or 14% of basic pay plus personal pay if any, plus DA as on 1.1.2006. With effect from 1.1.2006 only, notional effect will be given to the employees who are covered by the terms of the settlement. In the same settlement, in paragraph 4, it was stated that all existing benefits and service conditions, which are not changed in the Circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies will continue to be applicable and the settlement has been signed without prejudice to the cases pending before the Division Bench. It is also indicated that it applies to all the workmen who are covered by the Bank. 3. It was contended further that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.220, Cooperation, food and Consumer Protection Department dated 24.6.2003 giving guidelines for revision of scales. In Annexure 1 to the said G.O., it was indicated that the District Central Cooperative Bank can revise their pay with effect from 1.7.1999. The persons, who are coming under the "A" grade can get 10% increase in the basic pay and the persons who come under the "B" grade will get 6% increase. It was also indicated that the existing District Central Cooperative Banks who are loss making units will not get any benefit and if the Cooperative Banks have any profitable increase, then the implementation of the G.O can be considered. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners was that now the Bank has entered into an agreement increasing with the scale of pay, the benefit granted by G.O.Ms.No.220, Cooperation, Food and Consumer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Protection Department dated 24.6.2003 was given go-by, since the settlement reflects the scheme of notional benefit only from 1.1.2006. Because of this settlement, the petitioners, who are retired from service and were looking forward the wage increase on the basis of the Government Order have been made to lose a considerable increase in their salary. It is in that view of the matter, the Writ Petition was filed. 4. The Writ Petition was admitted on 13.8.2010. Pending the Writ Petition, in the application for interim injunction, only Notice was ordered. It is not clear as to how such a Writ Petition is maintainable that too at the instance of the petitioners, who are retired from service, more than 8 years before. 5. It must be noted that the fixation of wage in respect of a Cooperative Society including the District Central Cooperative Bank has to be done in terms of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules. It is not necessary that every order of the Government has to be implemented by the Cooperative Society. But, in the present case, the wage settlement has been arrived with all the Trade Unions functioning in the Bank with the assistance of the Government Labour Officers and signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is undoubtedly binding of all the employees including the past, present and future. Under Section 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is made clear that the settlement, which has been arrived in the course of conciliation proceedings will not only bind the parties to the settlement but in terms of the extended operation provided under Section 18(3)(d) of the Act, the settlement will cover even the persons, who were employed in the establishment and also the persons, who will subsequently get employed in the said establishment. In the light of the extended operation of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioners cannot have any scope to challenge the settlement. Further, the petitioners have made only the 4th respondent the management of the District Central Cooperative Bank as a party forgetting that the settlement has been signed on behalf of the workmen by four Trade Unions and they are also not parties. 6. In the absence of necessary and proper parties and in the absence of legal and enforceable right on the part of the petitioners, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ajr Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CO-OPERATION FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. 2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES E.V.R.SALAI, CHENNAI. 3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DHARMAPURI REGION DHARMAPURI. 4 THE SPECIAL OFFICER DHARMAPURI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD DHARMAPURI. 5 THE LABOUR OFFICER BYRAPPA STREET KRISHNAGIRI-635 001. + 1 cc to Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy, Advocate SR No.13711 + 1 cc to M/s. Sai Bharath and Ilan, Advocate SR No.13654 + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.13617 MS(CO) SR/7.3.2011 W.P.No.18090 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/