IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 26.11.2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.30138 of 2003 Tirunelveli District Central Co-operative Bank Vannarapettai Tirunelveli – 627 003 rep. by its Managing Director/ Special Officer .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Tirunelveli- 627 003 2. Tirunelveli District Central Co-operative Bank Employees' Union 23/Tirunelveli, Narayanan Illam 7, Nadutheru, Sinthupoonthurai Tirunelveli – 627 001 .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under article 226 of constitution of india seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent made in I.D.No.30 of 1996, dated 30.1.2003, and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathy For Respondent : Labour Court – R1 Mr.UM.Ravichandran for R2 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Bank, which is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner Bank has got its own bye-laws and Special bye-laws relating to the service conditions of the Staff of the Bank. Its main object is to lend agricultural loans to agriculturists through the Primary agricultural https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Co-operative Banks. The second respondent employees' Union had raised an Industrial Dispute stating that the seventeen employees, represented by the Union, should be considered to be employees of the petitioner Bank and that they should be paid all the allowances that were available to the other employees. The second respondent Union had stated that the employees, who were appointed as Junior Supervisors in the year, 1974, on adhoc basis, by the petitioner Management, were directed to be absorbed as Bank employees by an award made in I.D.No.190 of 1985. It was stated that all such employees had been absorbed by the petitioner Bank subsequent to the award passed in favour of the employees. Therefore, the second respondent Union had raised an Industrial Dispute before the first respondent labour Court in I.D.No.30 of 1996, stating that all the 19 employees should be considered as bank employees. The respondent Union, during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute, in I.D.No.30 of 1996, had given up its claim against 3 employees, namely, S.Narayanan, V.N.Shanmugavel and A.Subramaniam, stating that they were, subsequently, absorbed as in the case of the others and hence, no relief was necessary in their case. 3. The Management of the petitioner Bank had contested the Industrial Dispute, before the first respondent labour Court, stating that the petitioner Bank had given the necessary reliefs to all the employees, who had fulfilled the necessary criteria and they were given the benefits as per the settlements and the consequential awards. It had been further stated that the seventeen candidates, who were being represented by the second respondent Union, are not eligible for being absorbed as the employees of the petitioner Bank, since they were not working in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, as required by the Government Order relied on by the second respondent Union and the other rules and regulations applicable to the candidates. During the pendency of the Industrial Dispute, the second respondent Union had made an endorsement that it was not pressing for the reliefs, with regard to the candidates it was representing, except for two of them, namely, A.Arunachalam and S.Madasamy. The labour Court, after hearing both the parties to the dispute, had passed an award, dated 30.1.2003, in I.D.No.30 of 1996, allowing the claim of the second respondent Union and directing the management of the petitioner Bank to absorb A.Arunachalam and S.Madasamy as Bank employees and to pay them all the benefits, as per G.O. Ms.No.331, (Cooperation) Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 5.12.1988. With regard to the other candidates, the said industrial dispute had been dismissed. Challenging the said award of the first respondent, labour Court, dated 30.1.2003, the petitioner Bank has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent Union, the averments made on behalf of the petitioner Bank had been denied. The main objections raised on behalf of the petitioner Bank, with regard to A.Arunachalam, was that there were breaks in his service and with regard to S.Madasamy, it was stated that his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment had not been approved by the Central Co-operative Bank Adhoc Committee and he had not produced any proof to show that he had been appointed by the said Committee. The petitioner had not produced any document to substantiate its contentions of break in service in respect of the service of A.Arunachalam. Since Exhibit No.3, which is the adhoc employees list, produced on the side of the second respondent Union, had contained the names of both A.Arunachalam and S.Madasamy, in serial Nos.48 and 83, respectively, the contentions of the petitioner, with regard to the appointment of S.Madasamy by the Central Co-operative Bank Adhoc Committee, cannot be sustained. Since the award of the first respondent labour Court is in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case and since there is no irregularity and illegality in the said award, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be rejected, as unsustainable and devoid of merits. 5. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner Bank, as well as the second respondent Union, and in view of the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing on their behalf and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the award of the labour Court, dated 30.1.2003, made in I.D.No.30 of 1996, cannot be held to be valid. The labour Court, while directing the Management of the petitioner Bank to absorb A.Arunachalam and S.Madasamy as its employees, with all attendant benefits, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.331 (Cooperation) Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 5.12.1988, had committed a serious error in not considering all the aspects of the said Government order. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.331 (Cooperation) Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 5.12.1988, prescribes various requirements for an adhoc employee to be absorbed in the concerned District Co-operative Bank. The ratio in which the recruitment is to be made, the qualifications required and the resolutions required to be passed and the various other conditions prescribed in the said Government order have not been taken note of by the labour Court in coming to its conclusions. Further, it is found that the concerned Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank in which the two candidates, namely, A.Arunachalam and S.Madasamy had been working, have not been made parties to the Industrial Dispute on the file of the first respondent labour Court. In fact, it is for the second respondent Union to have proved that both the candidates were fully qualified as adhoc employees and that the necessary conditions had been fulfilled for their absorption in the petitioner Bank, as required in G.O.Ms.No.331 (Cooperation) Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 5.12.1988. In such circumstances, the award of the first respondent labour Court, dated 30.1.2003 made in I.D.No.30 of 1996, is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside. However, in view of the fact that a number of similarly placed candidates, who were adhoc employees, had been absorbed in the district Central Co-operative Banks and as it is the claim of A.Arunachalam and S.Madasamy that they were also fully qualified to be absorbed in the petitioner Bank and that all the necessary conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.331 (Cooperation) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 5.12.1988, have been fulfilled, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent labour Court to decide, afresh, all such issues, by giving sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned. The first respondent labour Court is expected to consider all the issues relating to the qualifications of the candidates, as well as the conditions required to be fulfilled for G.O.Ms.No.331 (Cooperation) Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 5.12.1988, to be applicable to them. 6. As it has been stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent Union that A.Arunachalam had already attained the age of superannuation and that S.Madasamy is close to attaining the age of retirement, the first respondent labour Court is directed to decide the issues raised before it, after the necessary parties are impleaded, by giving sufficient opportunity to all the parties to the dispute. The first respondent is directed to pass the award, after completing its enquiry, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.36818 of 2003, is closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. lan To: 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Tirunelveli- 627 003 1 cc to Mr.S.Silambanan, Advocate, Sr.No.66484 1 cc to Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, Advocate, Sr.No.66204 W.P.No.30138 of 2003 VM(CO) EM/3.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/