The Management, Chekkarakudi Primary Co-operative Bank vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and B. Parthasarathy

K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides.

The writ petition is filed by a primary Co-operative Bank. The management of the said co-operative bank is aggrieved by the award of the first

respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 159 of 1993 dated 08.12.1997. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the

second respondent with backwages, service continuity and all other attendant benefits.

The writ petition was admitted on 16.12.1999. Pending the writ petition, this Court directed the Management to deposit 50% of the backwages

and also to comply with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (for short I.D. Act). This was on condition that the workman files an

affidavit to the effect that he is not employed elsewhere. The second respondent filed two applications, one for vacating the stay and the other for

grant of monthly wages in terms of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. When the matter came up on 29.08.2001, since the conditional order was not

complied with, their stay application was dismissed. Liberty was granted to the workman to recover the amounts as per the award of the Labour

Court. The counsel for the second respondent could not confirm as to the steps taken by the workman in this regard.

The case of the petitioner was that the second respondent was the Secretary of the petitioner Society, engaged on a daily rated basis from

26.04.1992 to 03.06.1992. During the aforesaid period, it came to the knowledge that in another Society he had committed breach of trust and

was also convicted. He was found to have repeated the same thing when he worked in some other society. When the second respondent''s service

were no longer required, his service were dispensed with on 03.06.1992 and he is not eligible for any relief. The Society also took up the plea that

since he is the Secretary of the Society, he was not eligible for any relief under I.D. Act as he was not a workman within the meaning of Section

2(s) of the I.D. Act.

The second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute being I.D. No. 159 of 1993. In that dispute, the second respondent examined himself as

W.W.1. He filed 11 documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W11. On the side of the petitioner society, eight documents were filed and

they were marked as Exs.M1 to M8. The petitioner Society also examined one Arumuga Nainar, the Special Officer as M.W.1 and one

Hariharan, Salesman as M.W.2.

The Labour Court rejected the contention of the petitioner management that the second respondent was not a workman so as to be covered by

the I.D. Act. It also held that he was a regular workman and earlier criminal antecedent pointed out by the petitioner management had not reached

any finality and they are pending consideration in a criminal revision filed by the second respondent. Since the management had not examined the

then Special Officer, it cannot be accepted that his appointment was irregular. Even though his services were dispensed with on 03.06.1992 it was

only on 03.04.1993, a notification was published in a newspaper. In that view of the matter, his termination was held to be invalid and the relief

was granted to the second respondent as noted already.

Mr. Umapathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner society contended that he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D.

Act and placed reliance of the following two judgments:

(i) P. Baluchamy v. State represented by Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai and Ors.

2003 (3) L.L.N. 337.

(ii) V. Murugan v. Vedasandur C.C.H. Ltd. 2005 (2) L.L.N. 540.

It is wholly unnecessary to go into the issue of the status of the second respondent in view of the fact that the matter can be disposed of on other

grounds.

It is an admitted case that the second respondent was convicted when he was working in some other society and the conviction had not been

set aside by any competent Court so far. It is necessary to refer to Rule 149(4) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 and the

same may be extracted below:

(4) No person shall be appointed to the service of any Society, if he has been found guilty of any offence involving moral turpitude. An employee

shall cease to be as such in a society, if he is found guilty of any such offence.

Therefore, his initial appointment itself was illegal. Secondly, it is not as if he was appointed by following the procedure prescribed under Rule

Admittedly, his tenure was only for two months and he had not completed the statutory minimum service prescribed u/s 25-B of the I.D. Act

so as to qualify for any relief in terms of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court had gone on a tangent and granted the relief of

reinstatement with all benefits without any justification.

In the light of the same, the writ petition will stand allowed and the impugned award of the Labour Court will stand set aside. No costs.