P.Sakathivel v. The Joint Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.No.30166 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.29782 of 2023 1.P.Sakthivel 2.A.Senthilmurugan ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai Region, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai Circle, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Management of V.T.743, Tiruvannamalai District Police Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., rep. by its President/Secretary/Administrator ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to approve the 12(3) settlement made before Assistant Commissioner of
Labour dated 31.01.2023 and consider the 3rd respondent proposal dated 13.02.2023 and permit the petitioner to draw the salary and other allowance within stipulated time as fixed by this Court. For Petitioners : Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior Counsel for Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran, Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.K.Ashok kumar for Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan for R3
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to approve 12(3) settlement made before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour dated 31.01.2023 and consider the proposal of the third respondent dated 13.02.2023 and permit them to draw the salary and other allowances within a specified time limit. 2.The case of the petitioners is that consequent to an Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioners, 12(3) Settlement was entered into between the petitioners' Union and the third respondent on 31.01.2023 by
accepting the terms of condition stated therein. Though the above settlement has been reached in respect of Pay Revision, Dearness Allowance and other service benefits, the same have not been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the members of the Union, which entered into settlement, demanding the settlement of benefit, have filed this writ of Mandamus.
3.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that since 12(3) settlement has been entered into between the Trade Union and the then President of the third respondent/Society, without the knowledge of the respondents 1 and 2 and without getting any prior approval from them in this regard, the above settlement will not bind respondents 1 and 2. Hence, it is difficult on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the proposal dated 13.02.2023 sent by the third respondent. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners can only raise an Industrial Dispute in case they are aggrieved due to non-compliance of mandatory service conditions and it is for
respondents 1 and 2 to accord prior approval and that cannot be held against the petitioners.
5.Admittedly, in the terms of settlement nothing has been stated about getting prior approval from respondents 1 and 2. However, the contention of respondents 1 and 2 is that unless the factum of the settlement has been brought to their notice, it may not be possible for them to accord approval and the third respondent, by colluding with the Trade Union, has brought out 12(3) settlement. Even if respondents 1 and 2 denied their approval for 12(3) settlement, the fact remains that there is no settlement so far, entered on behalf of the employees. It is difficult to believe that respondents 1 and 2 did not have the knowledge about the pending dispute under which the third respondent has entered into 12(3) settlement before the Conciliation Officer.
6.Whatever may be the case, the representations of the petitioners are lying with respondents 1 and 2, without passing any orders. If respondents 1 and 2 considered the representations of the petitioners and passed any
order, depending upon the nature of the order, the petitioners can either get the benefits or atleast choose to raise an another Industrial Dispute. But, the respondents cannot simply state that the approval has not been granted and hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any pay revision or other service benefits.
7.It is learnt from the earlier orders that respondents 1 and 2 have been paying last drawn pay of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the petitioners from April 2023. The same need not be stopped and it can be continued to be paid as per the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by this Court. 8.With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. stands closed. 30.10.2024 vga Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No
R.N.MANJULA,J.
vga To 1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai Region, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai Circle, Tiruvannamalai District.
W.P.No.30166 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.29782 of 2023 30.10.2024