2008 (1) TMI 986 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of impugned orders dated 12.3.1999 and 8.4.1999.
2. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vs. Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.
3. Authority of the Registrar under Section 181 of the Act 1983.
4. Compliance with Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988.

Summary:

1. Validity of Impugned Orders:
The appeals challenge the validity of the impugned orders dated 12.3.1999 and 8.4.1999, which directed the cancellation of the 18(1) settlement and recovery of payments made based on higher pay scales.

2. Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vs. Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983:
The appellants argued that any annulment of the 18(1) settlement should be done under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They contended that the respondents should have terminated the settlement under the provisions of the 1947 Act before recovering the payments. The respondents, however, relied on the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which empowers the Registrar to issue directions in public interest.

3. Authority of the Registrar under Section 181 of the Act 1983:
The Government Pleader emphasized that the Registrar has the authority under Section 181 of the Act 1983 to issue directions in public interest. The impugned orders were issued following such directions dated 16.10.1997, which were not challenged by the appellants. The court found that the powers under Section 181 are broad and validly exercised in this case.

4. Compliance with Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988:
Rule 149 mandates that service conditions, including pay scales, should be framed with the Registrar's approval. The court noted that the impugned orders were in line with Rule 149 and the directions issued by the Registrar. The court also observed that the individual societies had entered into settlements under the Industrial Disputes Act, bypassing the statutory directions, which justified the Registrar's intervention.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the impugned orders, stating that they were in accordance with the statutory provisions and the earlier Division Bench decision. The appeals were dismissed, and the orders of the learned single Judge were affirmed. The appellants' failure to challenge the Registrar's directions dated 16.10.1997 precluded them from contesting the subsequent orders.