This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records of the second respondent proceedings Na.Ka.No.4129/99/E, dated 25.2.2004 and quash the same.
2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the first respondent herein, addressed a letter dated 4.2.2004 to all the Regional Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies (except Chennai Region). Paragraph 3 of the said letter, which is relevant, reads as follows:-
"3. I, therefore, request you to instruct the Special Officers of all Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks to ensure that the pay scales of their employees are within the pay scales approved by the government in G.O.Ms.131, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dt.4.6.99 and that their pay scales should be revised immediately, if not already done, except in cases where a stay of these orders have been obtained from the court. I also request you to furnish the names of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks, which have revised the pay scales as per the government instructions dt.9.10.2003."
3. In turn, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gobi Circle, the second respondent, insisted all the Special Officers in the Gobi Circle, Erode District to reduce the pay scales without passing any written orders. Accordingly, the Special Officers have not disbursed on settlement salaries but insist the employees to give consent for revised pay scales.
4. The grievance of the petitioner Union is that instead of the Settlement arrived under
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the bank and the employees, the direction issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the first respondent herein, to all the Regional Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies and in particular the 2nd respondent in the instant case will be contrary to the settlement arrived under
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the impugned letter is under challenge.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents state that the respondent authorities have power to give direction to their subordinates to implement the Government Order. Moreover, it will be open to the petitioner to contest the proceedings of the Special Officer of Co-operative Societies, if he acts upon the letter of the second Respondent in Na.Ka.No.4129/99/E dated 25.2.2004. Hence, the petition filed is premature.
6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Co-operative Bank has the power to revise the salary by adopting the procedure laid down under law. He also stated that the authorities are not interfering with the settlement, though the bank has got the liberty to revise the salary under
Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
7. In any event, it is stated that no notice for revising the pay has been issued by the Special Officer of the respective region, so as to come before this court by way of writ petition. If and when such proceedings are initiated in accordance with law, it is always open to the writ petitioners to challenge such proceedings as provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
8. In similar matter, in W.P.No.8341 of 2002, this court passed the following order:-
"7. In this case, the impugned order is only a general direction issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the first respondent herein to all the Regional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to implement the G.O.No.186 dated 16.8.2000. There is no dispute that on the basis of the said letter, the sixth respondent has to adopt the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by issuance of appropriate notice and by providing opportunity to the petitioners to ventilate their grievance. Since no action has been taken by the sixth respondent, the challenge to the said letter dated 4.10.2004 appears to be premature. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for issuance of notice before revising the scale of pay and the petitioners will be entitled to the reasonable opportunity to challenge the same in accordance with the rules and procedure prescribed. Since the sixth respondent has stated that they are not contemplating any action till date and due process of law will be followed, the challenge in the present writ petition has to fail only for the reason that the writ petitioners have come before this court without a cause of action for the same. If the sixth respondent or any other respondent takes action for revising the scale of pay in accordance with Industrial Disputes Act and/or any other provisions of law, it is always open to the writ petitioners to challenge the same as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or as may be provided under law.