THE HONOURABLE MR v. The Principal District Judge Tribunal for Co-operative Cases Thanjavur2. The Deputy Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10-08-2007CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A. KULASEKARANW.P. No. 46137 of 2002-o-S. Arulanandaswamy.. PetitionerVersus1. The Principal District Judge Tribunal for Co-operative Cases Thanjavur2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Kumbakonam3. The Special Officer Kumbakonam Central Co-operative Bank Limited Kumbakonam.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.For Petitioner:Mr. S.D.N. VimalanathanFor Respondents:Mr. S. GopinathanAddl. Government Pleader for R2Mr. R.Parthiban for R3ORDERThe petitioner has come forward with this writ petitionpraying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for therecords of the first respondent in C.M.A. No. 75 of 2000 dated19.07.2002 in reversing the Order in ARC No.4259/95-96 dated27.09.1996 of the second respondent and quash the C.M.A. No. 75 of2000 by confirming the Order of the second respondent in ARC No.4259/95-96 dated 27.09.1996 and for a consequent direction to fixthe petitioner's seniority from 07.11.1968 the date of originalappointment.2.The petitioner was appointed as Junior Supervisor in thethird respondent society in the year 1968. By Order dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.07.1977 of the third respondent, the petitioner was dismissedfrom service allegedly without holding any enquiry, hence, heapproached the Labour Officer for conciliation. Pendingconciliation proceedings, the third respondent re-appointed thepetitioner by order dated 09.04.1979. The said order dated09.04.1979 reads as follows:-"Thiru. S. Arulanandasamy is re-appointedas Junior Supervisor and posted to work asSecretary for the Pandalur VCACS in KumbakonamTaluk.He should join duty forthwith and takecharge of the society from Secretary,Pandanallur VCACS and relive Thiru. S.Ramalingam.On relief, Thiru. S. Ramalingam is postedas Junior Supervisor Clerk, Kodavasal Branch.Thiru. S. Ramalingam is not entitled forany transfer T.A.The above persons should submit theirjoining report along with the charge list tothe bank." 3.Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.P. No. 818 of 1979before the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai claiming backwagesfor the period of dismissal namely 11.07.1977 to the date of re-appointment i.e., 09.04.1979 which was dismissed on merits afterhearing the parties by Order dated 21.02.1981 holding that thepetitioner was re-appointed, not reinstated as such he is notentitled to make a claim for backwages. The operative portion ofthe order dated 21.02.1981 runs as follows:-"....As such on this petition on the onlyground that the petitioner was onlyreappointed and he was not reinstated in theservice and as such he could not claim anybackwages or other benefits as claimed in theapplication."4.The petitioner, having waited for 20 years has filedexecution Petition No.1/2001-2002 before the second respondentpraying for backwages and continuity of service, which was allowedby order dated 21.01.2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the thirdrespondent has filed C.M.A. No. 75 of 2002 before the DistrictCourt, Tanjore, which was allowed by order dated 19.07.2002setting aside the order of the second respondent dated 21.01.2002on the ground that the petitioner was re-appointed by the bank on09.04.1979 and that the petitioner misconstruing the said order asreinstatement, filed execution petition before the secondrespondent, which is not maintainable. The said order dated19.07.2002 passed in CMA No. 75 of 2002 is challenged in this writpetition.5.Mr. Vimalanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that the third respondent/bank deliberately failed toconsider the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Supervisorin the year 1968 and he was terminated unceremoniously withoutconducting any enquiry, considering the said fact, the order ofreinstatement was passed by the third respondent on 09.04.1979;that the petitioner has approached the labour Court and filed C.P.No. 818 of 1979 seeking backwages, which was dismissed, later, hecame to know that the second respondent is the competent person todecide the issue, accordingly, the petitioner has filed E.P. No. 1/2001-2002 which was allowed and the third respondent was directedto give continuity of service and backwages, but the firstrespondent erroneously set aside the said order of the secondrespondent and prayed for allowing of the writ petition.6.Mr. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the thirdrespondent/Bank submitted that the services, if any, rendered bythe petitioner prior to 09.04.1979 is immaterial since, thepetitioner, without any murmur has accepted the order of re-appointment dated 09.04.1979 and joined the service; that thepetitioner has not chosen to challenge the said order of re-appointment dated 09.04.1979, hence, it is not open to him to seekbackwages and continuity of service; that the petitioner hasapproached the I Additional Labour Court by filing CP No. 818 of1979 and the labour court, after hearing both sides, has rightlydismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner hasmisconstrued the order of re-appointment dated 09.04.1979 into oneof reinstatement; that the said order reached finality as thepetitioner has not filed any appeal against the same; that whilethings are such, the order dated 21.01.2002 passed by the secondrespondent in the execution petition is not at all maintainable,besides that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to pass thesaid order, which was rightly considered by the first respondentand set aside the said Order dated 21.01.2002 by its order dated19.07.2002 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.7.On the above contention, this court heard the learnedAdditional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and2 and perused the material records. 8.To resolve the disputes involved in this case, the orderdated 09.04.1979 passed by the third respondent is required to bescrutinised. It is seen from the said order that the petitionerwas re-appointed as Junior Supervisor and posted to work asSecretary. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner andit reached finality. In view of the fact that the petitioner wasre-appointed by the third respondent, he cannot claim backwagesand continuity of service. Indeed, the CP No. 818 of 1979 filedby the petitioner was disposed of by the I Additional Labour Courtafter hearing both the parties on 21.02.1981 wherein it was heldthat the petitioner has filed the said petition by misconstruingthe words "re-appointment" as "reinstatement". The said order hasalso reached finality. After 20 years of the said order passed bythe labour court, the petitioner has filed Execution Petitionbefore the second respondent, which was erroneously entertained by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it without properly considering the order of re-appointment dated09.04.1979. However, the first respondent, while disposing ofC.M.A. No. 75 of 2002 filed by the third respondent has rightlyfound that the said order dated 21.01.2002 passed by the secondrespondent is invalid and allowed the appeal.9.In view of the above said discussion, this Court findthat there is no infirmity or illegality in the well consideredorder passed by the first respondent, hence, the writ petition isdismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar rshTo1. The Principal District Judge Tribunal for Co-operative Cases Thanjavur2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Kumbakonam3. The Special Officer Kumbakonam Central Co-operative Bank Limited Kumbakonam+1cc to Mr.S.D.N.Vimalanathan,Advocate SR 30778+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 50517BVR (CO)km/18.8.WP No. 46137 of 2002