IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 OP.No. 3026 of 2000(I) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION, EMPLOYEES UNION (REG.NO.30/77) REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, K.U.BASHEER, JUNIOR GRADER, RUBBER MARK, COCHIN-20. 2. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES UNION (RUBBER MARK UNIT) (REG.NO.431/75), REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, P.K.ANILAKUMARI, CLERK, RUBBER MARK, COCHIN 20. 3. RUBBER MARK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (REG.O7/18/91), REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, P.G.THANKACHAN, RECORD KEEPER, RUBBER MARK, COCHIN 20. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, COCHIN-20. ADV. SRI.M.V.JOSEPH FOR R2 SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R2 SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO. 3026/2000 ORDER IN CMP NO.4926 OF 2000 IN OP NO.3026 OF 2000 DISMISSED 23/6/2009 SD/-ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O(MS) NO.220/99 CO-OP DT 7.5.1999. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.SL:677:9459:99-2000 DT 6.7.99, ISSUED BY GENERAL MANAGER, RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER E.M.NO.3. 36157/99 DT 17.12.1999 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 17.12.1999. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1: COPY OF THE PAY REVISION ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.72/97/CO- OP. DT 28.4.1997. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P. NO. 3026 OF 2000 (I) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are trade unions representing the workers of the Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation. 2. In this original petition, the prayer sought is to declare that the employees of the Marketing Federation are entitled to the benefits granted by the Government as per Ext.P1. On that basis, they are also seeking to quash Ext.P3. 3. Ext.P1 is an order issued by the Government of Kerala providing that in respect of the employees of the primary co- operative societies, for the purpose of HRA, TA and DA, notional pay will be quantified adding 148% DA to their basic pay. Petitioner submits that by Ext.P2, HRA was ordered to be paid to the employees of the Marketing Federation based on Ext.P1. However, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Ext.P3 communication directing to stop payment on the basis of Ext.P2 and to recover the excess amount paid. It is thereupon that this OP was filed. 4. In this original petition, what is mainly urged is the OP No.3026/2000 :2 : claim of the petitioners for HRA and TA. According to the petitioners, the employees of the primary co-operative societies are being paid on the basis of Ext.P1, by adding 148% of the DA to the basic pay and treating the same as the notional pay. It is stated that if that be so, there is no reason why the employees of the apex societies like Marketing Federation should be discriminated and paid HRA and DA on a different basis to their disadvantage. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Raman v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1978 KLT S.N.88) and also Cochin Co-operative Hospital v. Annamma (1998(1) KLT 801). 5. Respondent 1 has filed a counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the applicability of Ext.P1 is confined to the employees of the primary co-operative societies alone. It is stated that it was despite an order that was issued requiring the 3rd respondent not to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 to the employees of the Marketing Federation, that Ext.P2 was issued without obtaining any approval from the 1st respondent. It is stated that it being an erroneous payment, they were justified in issuing Ext.P3. It is also pointed out that the employees of the OP No.3026/2000 :3 : Apex Society and the Primary Co-operative Societies were always governed by different set of conditions of service and in so far as the employees of the federation are concerned, they were governed by Ext.R1(a) order dated 28/4/1997 whereby pay and other benefits were revised w.e.f. 1/1/95. It is stated that in so far as the primary societies are concerned, their pay was revised by separate orders w.e.f. 1/1/96 and it was consequently that Ext.P1 was issued. In effect, what is contended is that the employees of the apex society were always treated as a class different from the employees of the primary co-operative societies. 6. As already stated, the plea now is confined to equality in so far as HRA and TA alone. Petitioners are the employees of Apex Society and what they are claiming is parity with the employees of primary societies. Plea of discrimination can be sustained only if the petitioners succeed in establishing that the employees of the apex societies and the employees of the primary societies belong to one class of employees. 7. In my view, there is absolutely no material to substantiate this plea. That apart, respondents have specifically stated that the employees of the apex society and the employees OP No.3026/2000 :4 : of the primary society are governed by different conditions of service including pay revision orders. The benefits enjoyed by these two sets of employees are also separate. If that be so, I must conclude that they belong to different classes of employees and as a consequence thereof, I cannot accept the plea of discrimination now raised by the petitioners. Original petition therefore cannot be allowed and hence dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp