The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. GODA SHTVA SENIOR COUSNEL REp SRI P. SRI HARSHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI ALLIKA SURESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to5: GP FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES W.A.NO: 1352OF 2024 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order dated 30/04i2024inW P No .16691 of 2023.on thefile of the High Court. Between: Nalgonda and Union Limited, Ranga Reddy Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co-operative Hayathnagar, Hyderabad - 501 505. Rep. by its Managing Drrector AND ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.4

1. G. Sandhya Rani. D/o G Narsihma Reddy, Aged Junior l,4anager (Accounts), R/o. Plot No.56,Road No.3, 59 Years, Occ. Phase ll, Pindi Naryana Reddy Colony, Sagar Road, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTAA/RIT PETITIONER

2. The state of rerangana, Rep. by its principar secretary, Agricurture and co- operation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner, Co-operation and Registrar for Co-operative Societies, / Hyderabad, Telangana.

4. The District Co-operative Officer, O/o. Mutually Aided Co-operative Society, Rangareddy District.

5. The Managing Director, Nalgonda and Ranga Reddy tVilk Producers Mutually Aided Co-operative Union Ltd, Hayathagar, Hyderabad - 501 505.

6. The Managing Director, Telangana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Hyderabad. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 .,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Writ. Petition No.1669'l of 2023 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. GODA SHIVA SENIOR COUSNEL REP SRI P. SRI HARSHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI ALLIKA SURESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4: cP FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5&6: The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT // -// HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC]E ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ANT) HON'BLE SRI .II]STICIi LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPITA l. Nos.l351 & 1352 of 2024 COMN{ON JUDGMENT: 'Jtr llon blt Sn Jtsnce tn\Du \oratatn 1l6tutD) \\/rit Appeal Nos. 1151 and li52 ol 2024 are filed aggrieved by the common order, datecl -10.04.2024, passed by a learned single Judge of this Cou( in W.P.Nos.l1778 and 1669 I of 2023, respectjvel),

2. Since tl.re issue involved in both the Writ Appeals is one and the same, the matters are heard together and are being disposed ol by this comrnon judgnrent

3. I{eard Sri Goda Shiva, leamed senior counsel appearing for Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel on rccord for appellant, Sri A.Suresh, learned courrsel lor respondent No.l and learned Governrnent Pleader tbr Oo-operative societies for respondent Nos.2 to 4

4. I'he facts of the case, briefly stated, as narrated by lespondent No. I in both thc Writ Appeals, are that they were initially appointed on contract basis as workers in Mother Dairv "dfr&re 2 ..l.KS,J&L,\tA.J U )\ os I351 & 13i2 of 2021 (Nalgonda & Ranga Reddy Co-Operative Milk producers Union Limited) in the year 1993; that subsequently, a note dated

20.02.2003 was issued infonning that the said Dairy was converted into Nalgonda & Ranga Reddy Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co-Operative Union Limited (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'NARMAC'), subject to condition that the serwice conditions of the employees would be protected and according to service conditions prior to conversion, the service Rules of Govemment employees were applicable to the crnployees of appellant-union as well. It was further averred that a settlement has been reached between the Management of NARMAC and the workmen under Section 18(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was reduced into writing as MoU dated 30.06.2005; and that as per one of the conditions of the said MoU, the workmen will accept the Service Rules and Regulations ol the Union and subsequent amendments from time to time,

4.1. Thereafter, the Govemment of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.34, daled 2l .10.2021 enhancing the age of superannuation of all employees of Co-Operative Societies froin 58/60 to 6l years, as -) AKS J Ii LNA J tlt.l -\:os l35l & t3:2 of2024 per arnendment ol Telangana Public Employment/Regulation of Age of Superannuation Act, 1984 and the same is made applicable to all the emplovees in lelangana State Dairy Developrnent Co- Opeletivc F-ederation l-irr ited (TSDDCF)

4.2. [t is thc specific case of respondent No.l in both the Writ Appeals that the said G.O.Ms.No.34 is applicable to the converted ernployees whose service conditions are governed by the same regulatior.rs prior to conversion. That respondent No. 1 in WA.No. 1352 of 2024 along with others made a representation dated 31.10.2022 to lespondent No.3 with a request to implement G.O.Ms.34, i.e., extension of revised pay scales and enhancement ofagc o1- supcrannuation lrom 58/60 to 61 years. Respondent No.2 vide lrroceedings dated 14.12.2002 inforrned respondent No.5 to take necessary action fbr canving out amendment to the bye-laws fbr enhancement of age of superannuation, however, respondent No.5 issued notice dated 2l .04.2023 retiring respondent No. 1 WA.No.l15l ol )-024 on attaining the age of 58 years. Aggr.ieved by the sarne, he filed WP.No.1 1778 of 2023 4 ,{KS J & LT;l.,I lI'1 ,\ot llil & l3 j) o[ )021

5. Respondent No. I in WA.No.lj52 of 2024 on apprehension that she would also be retired at the age of 5g years, filed WP.No. 16691 of 2023, specifically contending that amendments to bye-law Nos.32.4 and, 32.5 is contrary to Section 9_A of the Industrial Disputes Act r/w Section 2(p) of Telangana Co_ Operative Societies Act, 1964 r/w Rule 2g(6) of Telangana Co_ Operative Societies Rules, 1964.

6. The learned single Judge of this coun vide common. order dated30.04.2024 allowed both the Writ petitions by observing that amendments to bye-law Nos.32.4 and 32.5 are in violation of principles of natural justice since no specific notice was issued to the employees before making such amendment, which affects the service conditions of the employees. Aggrieved by the said common order, the present Writ Appeals are preferred by the employer.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant_ernployer contended that the appellant which was originally registered under Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964, was converted into a society registered under TS Murually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, a 5 1KS.J&1.,\A,J IY,l \os I 3i I & 1352 oI20)4 \ 1995 ard therefore, GO.Ms.No.34, dated 21.10.2021 which was issued under Itulc 28(6) of Telangana Co-Operative Services Rules, 1964 is rrot applicable to the appellant. Learned senior counscl lirrlhel cortte Irded that respondent No.1 in both the Writ Appeals werc absorbcd into service pursuant to MoU dated

30.06.2()05. sub.lect to certain terms and conditions and condition No.6 thereol' specifies that workmen shall accept the service regulations ol- lJnion and subsequent amendments from time to tl rre 8 Learrrccl scnior counsel also contended that the observation o1' learned single Judge that amendments to bye-Iaw Nos.32.4 and ll.5 done witholrt giving notice to the employees is in violation of principlcs of natural justice, is contrary to Section l0 ol TS Mutualll. Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, l995 and as such, he prayed to sct aside thc irnpugned orders.

9. PL'r contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-ra,orkmen in both the Appeals contended that the leamed single Judge, on ploper acliudication and interpretation of relevant laws, has rightly allowed Lhe Writ Petitions and hence, the contehtions put forth by 6 llj: al )A)1 the learned senior counsel appearing for appellant are unsustainable. He further contended that as per Section 9_A of the Industrial Disputes Act, service conditions of workrnen/employee cannot be changed without notice to the employees. Admittedly, in the present case, no notice has been issued to the employees and therefore, amendment to bye-laws No.32.4 and 32.5 in respect ol age of superannuation is contrary to Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and taking into account the said fact, the leamed single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ petitions and hence, these Writ Appeals are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed.

10. There is no dispute with regard to conversion of appellant- Union from Co-Operative Society to Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society and its subsequent registration under the TS Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, 1955. Ir is also nor in dispute that a settlement was arrived between the employees and appellant under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was reduced into writing as MoU dated 30.06.2005 and that, as per clause-6 thereof, the workmah will accept the service Y 7 AKS,J&l.i\'l.J llA Nos.l Si I & 1352 oI)021 rules and regulations ol the union and the subsequent amendments trour tiure to tirnc. White the things stood thus, the State (iovernrnent hzrs issued G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 2l .01.2021 , anrending Sub-rule((r) to Rule 28 of the Co-Operative Societies Act, l9(r.1 enhancing the age of superannuation from 58/60 to 6l years on par witl.r thc State Government employees. A bare reading of thc said (i.O. nrakcs it clear that it is issued only in respect of ernployces covercd under Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964, thcrclbr-e, the sarle is applicable only to the employees coveled under thc saicl Act I l. In thc prcscnt case, the employees are govemed by the TS Nlutuallv Aidcd Co-Operative Societies Act, 1955 and as such, the suid C.O.Ms.No.-1.1 has no application to the employees of the appellarrt. Ihr-rs, in this regard, the contention of the learned counsel tirl rcspondent No. l -eurployee that the said G.O.Ms.No.34 is applicablc to appellant-Llnion holds no water. 1 Irr tl'rc casc on hancl. the appellant has passed resolution amending byc-law Nos.32.4 and 32.5. The grievance of respondent No.l-enrployces is that they were not issubd notice prior to 8 AKS.J&I,IA.J tL'A \os l35 t & 135) ol )U.t amendment of bye-iaw Nos.32.4 and, 32.5 and the learned single Judge has set aside the said amendment on that sole ground.

13. Section l0(1) of the TS Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, 1995 empowers the society to amend any of the provisions of its bye-laws by resolution of its general body or by the representative general body by giving written notice to its members at least 20 days immediately preceding the date of meeting. Thus, the said provision does not specify that notice should be given to the employees prior to rnaking any amendment to the bye-laws.

14. Further, it is also appropriate to note that as per Clause-6 of MoU, the workmen will accept the service rules and regulations of the union and the subsequent amendments from time to time. In other words, under the said MoU the employees have unconditionally agreed that they will accept the service rules and regulations and the subsequent amendments from time to time. In the teeth of the said MoU and also in the light of Section 10( 1) of the Act, 1995, no notice is required to be issued to the employees 9 AKS,J&I,NA.J WA x'os I l5l & t352 of202.t before making any amendments to the bye-laws of the appellant- soclet\ t5. Corning to the judgrnent of the Hon'bte Supreme Court in Porarleep Pltosphales Limiled Vs. State of Orissa antl otherst, whicl.r r.vas ref-errcd to and relied upon by the leamed single Judge in the irnpugned orders, it is a case where the age of superannuation was rolled back from 60 years to 58 years and in the said case. the Hon'ble Supreme Couft observed as hereunder:- -'ln 1 9-t6. lcgislature inserted Section 9A of the Act which rnake.s it ohligatory on the part of the employer that he i.s bountl to give advance notice to the employee il'he intends to cltunge certain things as envisaged under Section 9A oJ the Act read with Fourth Schedule.,'

16. l'l.ris Court rvith great r-espect is in complete agreement with the obselr.ations made by the Hon,ble Stpreme Court in the aloresaid casc. Horvever, in the case on hand, admittedly, a settlernent under Secrion l8(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been rcached between rhe appellant-Management and the workmen, including respondent No. 1 in both the cases, and the sarle was .edr-rced into writing as MoU and that as per one of the ' (zo t 8) o scc t ,l-s l0 /lJiJd /.,\;t J L;l Yor i Ji/ .i t_t j: ol )Dt conditions of the said MoU, the workmen will accept the Serrrice \ rules and regulations of the Union and subsequent amendnlents frorn time to time. Therefore, the said MoU is binding on thc parties to the same, i.e., the appellant and its workmen including respondent No. I in both the cases.

17. Further, proviso-(a) to Section 9-A of the LD. Act reads as hereunder:- "Provided that no notice shall be required for elfecling any such change- (a) where lhe change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or award. "

18. A harmonious reading of the above proviso to Section 9-A ol the Industrial Disputes Act and the MoU dated 30.06.2005 entered into between the appellant-Management and its employee s, makes it clear that the employees are bound by the MoU, as per which no notice is required to be given to the employees for elfecting any change in the service rules and regulations and the subsequent amendments from time to time. As such, the worlcr-nen having entered into MoU dated 30.06.2005, cannot turn around C AKS,J&LN),J x/A.Nos l35l & lJ52 of2021 from the sarnc and ventilate the grievance that their service rules and regulations \.tv,ere changed without issuing any notice to them. 19. [n thc light ot'rlre aloresaid aspects of the case. where the existence ol MoLl datccl 30.06.2005 is undisputed, the judgment of Hon'ble Suprcntc ('ourr in paratleep phosphotes Limiled, s case (cited supra) does conre to the aid of the workmen of the appellant, i.e., respondent No. I in botlt the cases and as such, the amendment of bye-law Nos.i2..1 and 32.5 by rhe appellant without giving any prior .oticc kr thc r'or.kr,cn including respondent No. t in both the cases cannot bc said t. bc in violation of principles of natural ,t I -justice.

20. In the lisht ol'the ulirrcrnentioned facts and circumstances of the case anc{ lbr rhe lirrcgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view rhar rhe le'a.ned single Judge has erred in holding that thc a,rerd,re,ts to bye-larv Nos.32.4 and 32.5 are in violation of principles ol' natural -justicc and as such, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingll,, the impugned orders of the leamed single Judge are liablc to bc set aside. 12 .{^5.J&t.\.{ J 4'l \or /J,i/.t 135: ot:0)1

21. In the result, both the appeals-W.A.Nos.l35l and 1352 of 2024 are allowed, setting aside the common order, dated

30.04.2024, passed in W.P.Nos.1 1778 and 16691 of 2023

22. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shalt stand closed. oT ,TRUE COPYII SD/. K. SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 'l . The Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation . Department, Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad.

2. The Commissloner, Co-operation and Registrar for Co-operative Societies, Hyderabad, Telangana.

3. The Managing Director, Nalgonda Ranga Reddy Milk Producers, I\,4utually Aided Co-operative Union Ltd, Hyderabad.

4. The District Co-operative Officer, O/o. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The Managing Director, Telangana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Hyderabad.

6. The Section Officer, Writ Service, Section High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

7. The Section Officer, Writ Division Bench, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

8. The Section Officer, Posting Section , High Court for the State of Telangana , Hyderabad

9. One CC to SRl. P. SRI HARSHA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 10 One CC to SRl. ALLIKA SURESH, Advocate [OPUC] 1 I. Two CCs to GP FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

12.Two CD Copies BM GJP I HIGH COURT DATE D :0 210512025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.1351 AND 1352 OF 2024 * oRTHES r4 ,c ,l) 16 lu[ 2025 ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS I t6l6br