Rep. by its Special Officer v. A.P. PoojamaniS/o. Palaniappan2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies /Revisional Authority,Erode Region, Erode
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, both the writ appeal and the writpetition are disposed of keeping in view the subsequent reinstatementof Respondent No
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Appellant is a Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a clerkunder the Bank on 23.5.1997 and subsequently regularized in the postof Supervisor. The Special Officer of the Appellant Bank passed anorder dated 31.8.2001 retrenching Respondent No.1 from service.…
- Para 88. With the above observations and directions, the writappeal and the writ petition are disposed of. There is no order asto costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrardpk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies /Revisional Authority, Erode Region, Erode.2 cc To Mr.K.Premkumar, Advocate, SR.25328 &…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.06.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAHWRIT APPEAL NO.3900 OF 2002andW.P.NO.39953 OF 2002 Kangeyam Co-operative PrimaryAgricultural and Rural DevelopmentBank Ltd., No.D(L) C-7Rep. by its Special Officer.. Appellant in WA.3900/02/ KangeyamPetitioner in WP.39953/02Vs.
A.P. PoojamaniS/o. Palaniappan2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies /Revisional Authority, Erode Region, Erode... Respondents in WA.3900/02/ Respondent Nos.2 & 1 in WP.No.39953/02Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against theorder of the learned single Judge dated 9.8.2002 in W.P.No.29570 of2002.WP.No.29570/02 :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, toissue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entirerecords relating to the passing of the impugned orders passed by the2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2/2001/Admn. dated16.05.2002 and quash the same consequently direct the respondents toreinstate the petitioner into service as "Supervisor" with back wagesand all other attendant benefits consequent to the decision passed bythe first respondent under Sec.153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-OperationSocieties Act 1983. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in ProceedingsNo.Na.Ka.11865/2001/A.4 and quash its order dated 18.1.2002.For Appellant in WA.3900/02 and for Petitioner in WP.39953/02: Mr.C. Karthick forMr.T.S. Gopalan For Respondent-1 in WA. and 2nd respondent in WP.39953/02: Mr.K. Prem KumarCOMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.K. MISRA, J)Heard Mr.T.S. Gopalan for the appellant and Mr.K. PremKumar for Respondent No.1.
Appellant is a Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a clerkunder the Bank on 23.5.1997 and subsequently regularized in the postof Supervisor. The Special Officer of the Appellant Bank passed anorder dated 31.8.2001 retrenching Respondent No.1 from service. Atthat stage, Respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.17033 of 2001. The HighCourt by order dated 19.9.2001, directed Respondent No.1 to file aRevision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative SocietiesRegistration Act and, accordingly, a Revision was filed before thesecond respondent, who by order dated 18.1.2002 allowed the Revisionand set aside the order of retrenchment and directed reinstatement of Respondent No.1 in service by observing that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had not beencomplied with. It was further observed that prior permission of the Labour Department had not been obtained and a report relating toaction had not been submitted to the Joint Registrar.
Thereafter, Respondent No.1 made several representations during the month of April and May, 2002 for reinstating him in service. But, since the Bank declined to reinstate, Respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.29570 of2002. Such writ petition was disposed of on 9.8.2002 directingRespondent No.1 to implement the order of the Joint Registrar within15 days by reinstating the person concerned with all backwages andother attendent benefits. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 made arepresentation on 26.8.2002 for reinstatement in service. Theappellant passed an order of reinstatement on 9.9.2002 withoutbackwages and Respondent No.1 joined on 19.9.2002. The appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bank passed a fresh order of retrenchment from service on 16.10.2002on the ground of financial crunch in the bank, by enclosing a chequefor a sum of Rs.37,950/- with purported compliance of Section 25-Fof the Industrial Disputes Act.
Respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.39974of 2002 against such order of retrenchment, dated 16.10.2002. Theappellant filed the present appeal against the order, dated 9.8.2002in W.P.No.29570 of 2002. On the very next day, the present Appellantfiled W.P.No.39953 of 2002 challenging the order of the JointRegistrar, namely, Respondent No.2, dated 18.1.2002. Respondent No.1filed Contempt Appln. No.827 of 2002 alleging that the order inW.P.No.29570 of 2002, which had directed reinstatement withbackwages, had not been complied with inasmuch as the backwages andthe attendant benefits had not been given. On 1.11.2002,W.P.No.39974 of 2002 filed by the present Respondent No.1 challengingthe second retrenchment order, dated 16.10.2002, was dismissed on theground that the writ petition was not maintainable against the Society. Even though a Review Petition was filed on 31.1.2003, suchReview Application, which was not numbered, has apparently not beenpursued by the present Respondent No.1.
On 15.10.2004, ContemptAppln. No.827 of 2002 was closed in view of the stay order dated23.1.2003 passed in the present writ appeal. However, it had beenindicated that the applicant (present Respondent No.1) would revivethe contempt application in case the decision of the appellate forum, namely, the present writ appeal, is decided in his favour.
It appears that during pendency of all theselitigations, Respondent No.1 has again been reinstated by theappellant Bank, subject to the result of the present Appeal.
The writ appeal is against the order of the learnedsingle Judge directing reinstatement with backwages. The connectedwrit petition, namely, W.P.No.39953 of 2002, has been filed by thevery same Bank challenging the order passed by the Joint Registrar, dated 18.1.2002, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operativeSocieties Act. It is therefore obvious that result of the writappeal would be dependent upon the result of the writ petition. Itis therefore more appropriate to consider such writ petition beforeconsidering the appeal.
The main contention in the writ petition is to theeffect that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act had beencomplied with by the Bank inasmuch as the Bank while issuing noticeof retrenchment had also enclosed the amount payable by deducting theadmitted amount which was payable by the employee to the Bank onaccount of various loans and advances availed by the employee. It isto be remembered that the Joint Registrar had passed the order on18.1.2002 and thereafter the order was passed in W.P.No.29570 of 2002directing the Bank to implement such order and also to pay backwages. In the counter affidavit, which was filed in W.P.No.29570 of 2002, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Bank had admitted the basic averments in W.P.No.29570 of 2002 andhad stated that it was waiting for the orders of the Deputy Registrarof Co-operative Society to implement the order of the Joint Registrarof the Co-operative Society. Thereafter the Bank on 9.9.2002 hadreinstated Respondent No.1 in service. In other words, the Bank hadalready accepted the order and thereafter filed the writ petition andthat too after a lapse of about nine months. That apart, the Bankhad already passed a fresh retrenchment order on 16.10.2002. Underthese circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Bank had already waived its right to challenge the order of the JointRegistrar. Under such circumstances, we do not find any scope tointerfere with the order passed by the Joint Registrar.
The present Writ Appeal is directed against the orderpassed by the learned single Judge directing reinstatement withbackwages. However, subsequently, a fresh order of reinstatementhaving been passed by the Bank, the basic order in W.P.No.29570 of2002, which had only directed implementation of the order of the Joint Registrar, had already been complied with. The only otherquestion is relating to backwages. It is not in dispute that duringpendency of such appeal, Respondent No.1, even though he had beensubsequently retrenched, was again been taken back in service. Underthese changed circumstances, we do not think it would be appropriateto insist upon compliance with the direction relating to payment ofbackwages.
Operative part
In the result, both the writ appeal and the writpetition are disposed of keeping in view the subsequent reinstatementof Respondent No.1 in service. It is made clear that it is notnecessary for the appellant to pay backwages as per the earlierdirection.
With the above observations and directions, the writappeal and the writ petition are disposed of. There is no order asto costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrardpk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies /Revisional Authority, Erode Region, Erode.2 cc To Mr.K.Premkumar, Advocate, SR.25328 & 25329.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.24810.WA.3900/2002 & WP.39953/2002 KLT(CO)RVL 21.08.2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, both the writ appeal and the writpetition are disposed of keeping in view the subsequent reinstatementof Respondent No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Co-OperationSocieties Act, 1983 — s. 153; Registration Act, 1908; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Tamil Nadu Co-operativeSocieties Act — s. 153.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 19 Jun 2009. The bench was P K MISRA, R SUBBIAHWRIT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.