The Management, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited Rep. by Its Special Officer Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and R. Ramachandran - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- t.n. estates (abolition & conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948 [act no. 26/1948]. sections 5(2) & 67; [a.p. shah, cj, mrs. prabha sridevan & p. jyothimani, jj] suo motu revisional powers held, on a bare reading of the provisions of section 5(2) of the act, it is clear that the power conferred on the director by section 5(2) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the settlement officer is very wide. in the first place, the director need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf, and the power could be exercised either on an application by an aggrieved person or suo motu. for example, if the director comes to know that contrary to the scheme of the act or due to misrepresentation or fraud played, a patta had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of the act is not tenable. -- t.n. estates (abolition & conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948. sections 5(2) & 67; suo motu revisional powers held, on a bare reading of the provisions of section 5(2) of the act, it is clear that the power conferred on the director by section 5(2) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the settlement officer is very wide. in the first place, the director need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf, and the power could be exercised either on an application by an aggrieved person or suo motu. for example, if the director comes to know that contrary to the scheme of the act or due to misrepresentation or fraud played, a patta had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of the act is not tenable. orderp. jyothimani, j.1. the writ petitions are directed against the orders passed by the labour court, vellore in computation petition nos. 619 of 2003 and 209 of 2004, by which the labour court allowed the computation petitions filed by the second respondent herein with direction to the writ petitioner to pay the monetary benefits of rs. 2,98,371/- and rs. 2,42,579/- respectively.2. the petitioner is a primary agricultural co-operative bank limited. the second respondent claiming himself to be the authorised representative of the beneficiaries filed the above computation petitions under section 33c(2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (in short, 'the act'), claiming monetary benefit of rs. 2,98,371/- for the period between 18.4.1990 and august, 2003 and rs. 2,42,579/- for the period between 18.4.1990 and july, 2001 respectively.3. while the claim in c.p. no. 619 of 2003, which is the subject matter in w.p. no. 1065 of 2009, was filed by the second respondent on behalf of d. jayasingh stated to have worked in the petitioner co-operative bank as salesman from 1.4.1986 and then from 1.7.1997 as clerk, the claim in c.p. no. 209 of 2004 which is the subject matter of w.p. no. 1771 of 2009 was filed on behalf of r. velu, stated to have been working in the petitioner co-operative bank from 1980. the said velu was originally appointed as night watchman and later he was posted as salesman from 1994 and he was suspended from service on 1.8.2001 and then dismissed from service on 15.7.2002.4. the petitioner in c.p. no. 619 of 2003 has claimed minimum wages as per g.o.473 dated 22.3.1990 and as per settlement under section 12(3) of the act entered in 1994 and the settlement under section 18(1) of the act entered on 1.12.1998. he also claimed earned leave which was not encashed and also wages which was not paid as per settlement dated 1.12.1998. likewise, in respect of the petitioner in c.p. no. 209 of 2004 it is stated that the workman was entitled to the benefits as per the settlements under sections 12(3) and 18(1) of the act and also under g.o.ms. no. 131 dated 14.6.1999 relating to fixation of salesman salary.5. it is the case of the petitioner employer that the computation petitions should not have been entertained since the beneficiaries have not filed the applications before the labour court and in fact, the beneficiaries have not been arrayed as parties in the computation petitions and only the claimant represented the workmen. it is also the case of the petitioner that under rule 54 of the tamil nadu industrial disputes rules, 1958 the beneficiaries should put their signatures in the petition and the appointment of representative for the beneficiaries is against the provisions of rule 149 of the tamil nadu co-operative societies rules and also against the judgment of full bench of this court in rathakrishnan, r. v. the deputy registrar of co-operative societies : 2007 (5) ctc 369. it is stated that the beneficiaries are not qualified and therefore, the employment itself is void as per the judgments of the supreme court in a. uma rani v. registrar of co-operative societies and ors. : (2004) 7 scc 112 and secretary, state of karnataka v. umadevi : (2006) 4 scc 1. however, in the computation petitions filed by the second respondent, the labour court passed the impugned awards allowing the petitions against which the present writ petitions are filed on the ground that the computation petitions should not have been entertained and the beneficiaries had not signed in form-m and the labour court cannot pass award in favour of the beneficiaries when the second respondent was cited as petitioner before the labour court.6. according to the writ petitioner, the beneficiaries are daily rated employees, not entitled for the benefits of the settlements under sections 12(3) and 18(1) of the industrial disputes act and the beneficiaries are also not entitled for the benefits under the payment of minimum wages act since their service conditions are governed by the co-operative societies act and the labour court ought not to have entertained the computation petitions. that apart, the order of the labour court is challenged on the ground that the petitions were not filed as per rule 65 of the industrial disputes rules, 1958 and the beneficiary in c.p. no. 209 of 2004 did not satisfy the norms laid down in rule 149 of the tamil nadu co-operative societies rules.7. the second respondent appearing in person, in the counter affidavit has stated that he is the general secretary of the co-operative industry workers union, that the witness on behalf of the petitioner management before the labour court has admitted that the beneficiary in c.p. no. 619 of 2003 was appointed by the petitioner within the cadre strength fixed to the fair price shop and the appointment is in conformity with the directions given by the division bench of this court reported in the a.p.s.r.t.c. v. b. vijaya 2002(3) ctc 385 and the subsequent clarification, that as per g.o.ms. no. 238 dated 19.10.2000 marked as ex.r-17 before the labour court, the tamil nadu co-operative societies act, 1983 and the rules, 1988 made there under are not applicable and that section 12(3) settlement or section 18(1) settlement are binding even in cases where the village fair price shop is not a party unless there is a fraud or collusion or misrepresentation. it is also stated that section 33 of the industrial dispute act would apply for the purpose of interpreting the settlements even if the employer is disputing the entitlement of workmen. according to the second respondent, the computation petition has been filed based on the pre-existing rights of the beneficiary and there is no bar for payment of minimum wages as per the payment of minimum wages act and the payment of minimum wages at rs. 2872/- per month itself cannot be obstructed by the petitioner.8. likewise, in respect of the beneficiary in c.p. no. 209 of 2004, which is the subject matter in w.p. no. 1771 of 2009, it is the case of the second respondent that the beneficiary velu was appointed by the bank as night watchman on 1.11.1979 and was sent to village fair price shop on 1.10.1984 to function as salesman, which is proved by ex.r-1. the beneficiary velu was also confirmed by g.o.ms. no. 365, co-operation, food and consumer protection department dated 24.7.1992 and the tamil nadu co-operative societies act would not apply and the service conditions of special by-laws were only registered on 28.2.1991, they are not applicable to the case of the beneficiary. that apart, the same grounds raised in respect of the beneficiary in c.p. no. 619 of 2003 are reiterated in the counter affidavit.9. it is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorisation letters stated to have been given by the beneficiaries in both the cases are not signed by the beneficiaries, but were signed by the second respondent himself and even the claim statement was filed by the second respondent and not by the beneficiaries and therefore, the labour court ought to have rejected the petitions at the initial stage itself.10. even though the petitioner management has now raised the question of maintainability of the computation petitions filed by the second respondent before the labour court on the basis that there was no authorisation given by the beneficiaries to the second respondent and the claim petitions have not been signed by the beneficiaries as required under rule 54 of the industrial disputes rules, a reference to the impugned award passed by the labour court shows that the petitioner has never raised such a dispute before the labour court at any point of time. the order shows that even in the counter statement filed by the petitioner before the labour court it has never been the case of the petitioner that the second respondent is not entitled to represent the beneficiaries in these two cases and on the other hand, the objection raised before the labour court was that the beneficiaries were not entitled to the benefits under the industrial disputes act and only the co-operative societies act and the rules made there under would apply and the appointment of the beneficiaries was not within the sanctioned strength and therefore, by applying the judgment in l. justin v. the registrar of cooperative societies 2002 (4) ctc 385, the beneficiaries should be treated as back door entrants.11. in the absence of any objection as to the maintainability of computation petitions filed by the second respondent on behalf of the beneficiaries raised by the management at the earliest point of time before the labour court, it is not possible to consider the stand of the petitioner now at this stage to decide about the maintainability of the computation petitions, on the above said grounds. rule 54 of the tamil nadu industrial disputes rules, 1958 contemplates form-m in cases where the beneficiaries themselves file application, while form-m1 is contemplated for filing application by the person authorised by the beneficiary as per the industrial disputes rules, 1958 and the form-m1 is as follows:form 'm-1'[see rule 54(1)]application by a person who is an assignee or heir of a deceased workman under sub-section (2) of section 33c of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (central act xiv of 1947)before the labour court between:-1. ...name of the applicant/applicants2. ...name of the employer:i am/we are the assignee(s)/heir(s) of the deceased workman and am/are entitled to make an application on his behalf.thiru ...is former workman of thiruvalargal...of...is entitled to receive from the said thiruvalargal...the money/benefits mentioned in the statement hereto annexed:address of workmen:signature/thumb-impression of theapplicant(s) address if applicant(s)station: date:12. a reading of form-m1 shows that the authorised representative himself can be shown as applicant. the authorisation filed by the second respondent before the labour court as it is filed in the typed-set of papers in the writ petition shows that its contents are similar to the ones found in form-m1. in such circumstances, the question raised about the maintainability of the computation petitions at this stage cannot be entertained.13. on merits of the case, in respect of c.p. no. 619 of 2003, the labour court has found that while the beneficiary therein was appointed in 1986 as salesman without any sponsorship from the employment exchange and thereafter he was working as a clerk in the co-operative bank, no evidence has been let in to show that he was not qualified for the post to which he was appointed. likewise, in respect of the beneficiary in c.p. no. 209 of 2004, though a reference to the award passed by the labour court shows that the beneficiary was appointed not through employment exchange, as per ex.p-4, xerox copy of the service register, the beneficiary had studied up to 8th standard and originally he was appointed as watchman. in fact, the labour court found in the impugned award that the management witness m.w.1, who is the secretary of the petitioner co-operative bank has clearly stated that he does not know about the educational qualification required for a person seeking appointment as watchman in the co-operative bank and it was, in those circumstances, the labour court has found on merit that the allegation of management that the beneficiaries are not qualified is not proved.14. in both the cases when the issue was raised that the appointment of beneficiaries was not within the cadre strength of the petitioner co-operative bank, the labour court found that the name of petitioner in c.p. no. 619 of 2003, viz., jayasingh was found in the acquittance register of the petitioner bank ex.p-7 at serial no. 5 and in such circumstances, in the absence of any evidence to show that the beneficiary was appointed outside the sanctioned strength, the labour court concluded that the beneficiary was appointed within the sanctioned strength. that was also the case in respect of velu, the beneficiary in c.p. no. 209 of 2004 in respect of whom the labour court found that there is no satisfactory evidence produced on behalf of the co-operative bank that the appointment of the beneficiary as watchman who was subsequently appointed as salesman was beyond the sanctioned strength and therefore, the contention raised by the management that the appointment of the beneficiary was beyond the sanctioned strength is liable to be rejected on merit. the labour court in the impugned award has found that when the appointment of the said beneficiaries was within the sanctioned strength, the lack of sponsorship by the employment exchange would not affect the appointment of the beneficiaries for the purpose of benefits to which they are entitled and in my considered view, the labour court has correctly found that the appointment of the said beneficiaries cannot be said to be illegal.15. lastly, the labour court has decided about the applicability of settlements under sections 18(1) and 12(3) of the industrial disputes act in both the cases. the beneficiary in c.p. no. 619 of 2003 claimed the benefits based on the settlement under section 12(3) entered into in the year 1994, marked as ex.r-7 and the settlement under section 18(1) entered into on 27.3.1999, marked as ex.r-8, in respect of difference of wages and earned leave benefits for the period between 18.4.1990 and august 2003. the labour court has taken note of various decisions of this court including the division bench judgments wherein it was held that the settlement entered into under section 12(3) or section 18(1) is not applicable to the staff of co-operative societies who were appointed without adequate qualifications and beyond the sanctioned strength during the period between 9.7.1981 and 11.3.2001. the labour court in the impugned award having found that there is no evidence to show that the beneficiaries in both the cases were appointed without adequate qualifications and that their appointments were beyond the cadre strength, held that the judgments pronounced in various cases holding that the benefits of settlements under sections 18(1) and 12(3) are not applicable, have no application to the facts of the present case.16. it is, on the basis that there is no evidence to show that the beneficiaries in both the cases were appointed without qualifications and their appointments were beyond the sanctioned strength, the labour court, in my view, has correctly come to the conclusion that the beneficiaries are entitled for the benefits under the settlements under sections 12(3) and 18(1) and accordingly, granted the difference of wages and earned leave benefits to the extent of rs. 2,98,371/- to the beneficiary in c.p. no. 619 of 2003 and in respect of the beneficiary in c.p. no. 209 of 2004, granted the difference of wages, bonus and earned leave benefits to the extent of rs. 2,42,579/- with interest. 17. in such circumstances, the judgment of division bench of this court rendered in management, tirunelveli co-operative milk producers' union ltd., tirunelveli v. p. pechimuthu 2009 (5) mlj 409 on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case, as the decision was rendered under the industrial establishments (conferment of permanent status to workmen) act, 1981. in that case, appointment was made without adherence to the prescribed qualifications and beyond the sanctioned strength. in such situation, it was held that the appointment itself was not legal and the subsequent conferment will not give any right to claim benefits prior to their regularisation.18. the judgment of the division bench in l. justin v. the registrar of cooperative societies 2002 (4) ctc 385 would also apply to the cases of illegal appointment of employees. in that case, the appointment made without qualifications and beyond the sanctioned strength is held to be a back door entry. on the factual assertion as tested by the labour court in the impugned award wherein it has been found that there is no evidence to show that the beneficiaries were appointed without qualifications and beyond the sanctioned strength, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no application.19. in these circumstances, i see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the labour court in favour of the beneficiaries. accordingly, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. no costs. it is made clear that as per the impugned award passed by the labour court, the concerned beneficiaries alone are entitled to receive the benefits. connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Judgment:
ORDER

P. Jyothimani, J.

1. The writ petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Labour Court, Vellore in Computation Petition Nos. 619 of 2003 and 209 of 2004, by which the Labour Court allowed the computation petitions filed by the second respondent herein with direction to the writ petitioner to pay the monetary benefits of Rs. 2,98,371/- and Rs. 2,42,579/- respectively.

2. The petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited. The second respondent claiming himself to be the authorised representative of the beneficiaries filed the above computation petitions under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act'), claiming monetary benefit of Rs. 2,98,371/- for the period between 18.4.1990 and August, 2003 and Rs. 2,42,579/- for the period between 18.4.1990 and July, 2001 respectively.

3. While the claim in C.P. No. 619 of 2003, which is the subject matter in W.P. No. 1065 of 2009, was filed by the second respondent on behalf of D. Jayasingh stated to have worked in the petitioner co-operative bank as Salesman from 1.4.1986 and then from 1.7.1997 as Clerk, the claim in C.P. No. 209 of 2004 which is the subject matter of W.P. No. 1771 of 2009 was filed on behalf of R. Velu, stated to have been working in the petitioner co-operative bank from 1980. The said Velu was originally appointed as Night Watchman and later he was posted as Salesman from 1994 and he was suspended from service on 1.8.2001 and then dismissed from service on 15.7.2002.

4. The petitioner in C.P. No. 619 of 2003 has claimed minimum wages as per G.O.473 dated 22.3.1990 and as per settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act entered in 1994 and the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act entered on 1.12.1998. He also claimed earned leave which was not encashed and also wages which was not paid as per settlement dated 1.12.1998. Likewise, in respect of the petitioner in C.P. No. 209 of 2004 it is stated that the workman was entitled to the benefits as per the settlements under Sections 12(3) and 18(1) of the Act and also under G.O.Ms. No. 131 dated 14.6.1999 relating to fixation of salesman salary.

5. It is the case of the petitioner employer that the computation petitions should not have been entertained since the beneficiaries have not filed the applications before the Labour Court and in fact, the beneficiaries have not been arrayed as parties in the computation petitions and only the claimant represented the workmen. It is also the case of the petitioner that under Rule 54 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 the beneficiaries should put their signatures in the petition and the appointment of representative for the beneficiaries is against the provisions of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules and also against the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Rathakrishnan, R. v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies : 2007 (5) CTC 369. It is stated that the beneficiaries are not qualified and therefore, the employment itself is void as per the judgments of the Supreme Court in A. Uma Rani v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ors. : (2004) 7 SCC 112 and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi : (2006) 4 SCC 1. However, in the computation petitions filed by the second respondent, the Labour Court passed the impugned awards allowing the petitions against which the present writ petitions are filed on the ground that the computation petitions should not have been entertained and the beneficiaries had not signed in Form-M and the Labour Court cannot pass award in favour of the beneficiaries when the second respondent was cited as petitioner before the Labour Court.

6. According to the writ petitioner, the beneficiaries are daily rated employees, not entitled for the benefits of the settlements under Sections 12(3) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the beneficiaries are also not entitled for the benefits under the Payment of Minimum Wages Act since their service conditions are governed by the Co-operative Societies Act and the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the computation petitions. That apart, the order of the Labour Court is challenged on the ground that the petitions were not filed as per Rule 65 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 and the beneficiary in C.P. No. 209 of 2004 did not satisfy the norms laid down in Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules.

7. The second respondent appearing in person, in the counter affidavit has stated that he is the General Secretary of the Co-operative Industry Workers Union, that the witness on behalf of the petitioner management before the Labour Court has admitted that the beneficiary in C.P. No. 619 of 2003 was appointed by the petitioner within the cadre strength fixed to the fair price shop and the appointment is in conformity with the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court reported in The A.P.S.R.T.C. v. B. Vijaya 2002(3) CTC 385 and the subsequent clarification, that as per G.O.Ms. No. 238 dated 19.10.2000 marked as Ex.R-17 before the Labour Court, the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the Rules, 1988 made there under are not applicable and that Section 12(3) settlement or Section 18(1) settlement are binding even in cases where the village fair price shop is not a party unless there is a fraud or collusion or misrepresentation. It is also stated that Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act would apply for the purpose of interpreting the settlements even if the employer is disputing the entitlement of workmen. According to the second respondent, the computation petition has been filed based on the pre-existing rights of the beneficiary and there is no bar for payment of minimum wages as per the Payment of Minimum Wages Act and the payment of minimum wages at Rs. 2872/- per month itself cannot be obstructed by the petitioner.

8. Likewise, in respect of the beneficiary in C.P. No. 209 of 2004, which is the subject matter in W.P. No. 1771 of 2009, it is the case of the second respondent that the beneficiary Velu was appointed by the bank as night watchman on 1.11.1979 and was sent to village fair price shop on 1.10.1984 to function as salesman, which is proved by Ex.R-1. The beneficiary Velu was also confirmed by G.O.Ms. No. 365, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 24.7.1992 and the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act would not apply and the service conditions of special By-laws were only registered on 28.2.1991, they are not applicable to the case of the beneficiary. That apart, the same grounds raised in respect of the beneficiary in C.P. No. 619 of 2003 are reiterated in the counter affidavit.

9. It is the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the authorisation letters stated to have been given by the beneficiaries in both the cases are not signed by the beneficiaries, but were signed by the second respondent himself and even the claim statement was filed by the second respondent and not by the beneficiaries and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have rejected the petitions at the initial stage itself.

10. Even though the petitioner management has now raised the question of maintainability of the computation petitions filed by the second respondent before the Labour Court on the basis that there was no authorisation given by the beneficiaries to the second respondent and the claim petitions have not been signed by the beneficiaries as required under Rule 54 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, a reference to the impugned award passed by the Labour Court shows that the petitioner has never raised such a dispute before the Labour Court at any point of time. The order shows that even in the counter statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court it has never been the case of the petitioner that the second respondent is not entitled to represent the beneficiaries in these two cases and on the other hand, the objection raised before the Labour Court was that the beneficiaries were not entitled to the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act and only the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made there under would apply and the appointment of the beneficiaries was not within the sanctioned strength and therefore, by applying the judgment in L. Justin v. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies 2002 (4) CTC 385, the beneficiaries should be treated as back door entrants.

11. In the absence of any objection as to the maintainability of computation petitions filed by the second respondent on behalf of the beneficiaries raised by the management at the earliest point of time before the Labour Court, it is not possible to consider the stand of the petitioner now at this stage to decide about the maintainability of the computation petitions, on the above said grounds. Rule 54 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 contemplates Form-M in cases where the beneficiaries themselves file application, while Form-M1 is contemplated for filing application by the person authorised by the beneficiary as per the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 and the Form-M1 is as follows:

FORM 'M-1'

[See Rule 54(1)]

Application by a person who is an assignee or heir of a deceased workman under Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947)

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT Between:-

1. ...Name of the applicant/applicants

2. ...Name of the employer:

I am/we are the assignee(s)/heir(s) of the deceased workman and am/are entitled to make an application on his behalf.

Thiru ...is former workman of Thiruvalargal...of...is entitled to receive from the said Thiruvalargal...the money/benefits mentioned in the statement hereto annexed:

Address of workmen:

Signature/Thumb-impression of the

applicant(s)

Address if applicant(s)

Station:

Date:

12. A reading of Form-M1 shows that the authorised representative himself can be shown as applicant. The authorisation filed by the second respondent before the Labour Court as it is filed in the typed-set of papers in the writ petition shows that its contents are similar to the ones found in Form-M1. In such circumstances, the question raised about the maintainability of the computation petitions at this stage cannot be entertained.

13. On merits of the case, in respect of C.P. No. 619 of 2003, the Labour Court has found that while the beneficiary therein was appointed in 1986 as Salesman without any sponsorship from the Employment Exchange and thereafter he was working as a Clerk in the Co-operative bank, no evidence has been let in to show that he was not qualified for the post to which he was appointed. Likewise, in respect of the beneficiary in C.P. No. 209 of 2004, though a reference to the award passed by the Labour Court shows that the beneficiary was appointed not through Employment Exchange, as per Ex.P-4, Xerox copy of the Service Register, the beneficiary had studied up to 8th standard and originally he was appointed as Watchman. In fact, the Labour Court found in the impugned award that the management witness M.W.1, who is the Secretary of the petitioner Co-operative Bank has clearly stated that he does not know about the educational qualification required for a person seeking appointment as Watchman in the Co-operative Bank and it was, in those circumstances, the Labour Court has found on merit that the allegation of management that the beneficiaries are not qualified is not proved.

14. In both the cases when the issue was raised that the appointment of beneficiaries was not within the cadre strength of the petitioner Co-operative Bank, the Labour Court found that the name of petitioner in C.P. No. 619 of 2003, viz., Jayasingh was found in the acquittance register of the petitioner bank Ex.P-7 at serial No. 5 and in such circumstances, in the absence of any evidence to show that the beneficiary was appointed outside the sanctioned strength, the Labour Court concluded that the beneficiary was appointed within the sanctioned strength. That was also the case in respect of Velu, the beneficiary in C.P. No. 209 of 2004 in respect of whom the Labour Court found that there is no satisfactory evidence produced on behalf of the Co-operative Bank that the appointment of the beneficiary as Watchman who was subsequently appointed as Salesman was beyond the sanctioned strength and therefore, the contention raised by the management that the appointment of the beneficiary was beyond the sanctioned strength is liable to be rejected on merit. The Labour Court in the impugned award has found that when the appointment of the said beneficiaries was within the sanctioned strength, the lack of sponsorship by the Employment Exchange would not affect the appointment of the beneficiaries for the purpose of benefits to which they are entitled and in my considered view, the Labour Court has correctly found that the appointment of the said beneficiaries cannot be said to be illegal.

15. Lastly, the Labour Court has decided about the applicability of settlements under Sections 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act in both the cases. The beneficiary in C.P. No. 619 of 2003 claimed the benefits based on the settlement under Section 12(3) entered into in the year 1994, marked as Ex.R-7 and the settlement under Section 18(1) entered into on 27.3.1999, marked as Ex.R-8, in respect of difference of wages and earned leave benefits for the period between 18.4.1990 and August 2003. The Labour Court has taken note of various decisions of this Court including the Division Bench judgments wherein it was held that the settlement entered into under Section 12(3) or Section 18(1) is not applicable to the staff of co-operative societies who were appointed without adequate qualifications and beyond the sanctioned strength during the period between 9.7.1981 and 11.3.2001. The Labour Court in the impugned award having found that there is no evidence to show that the beneficiaries in both the cases were appointed without adequate qualifications and that their appointments were beyond the cadre strength, held that the judgments pronounced in various cases holding that the benefits of settlements under Sections 18(1) and 12(3) are not applicable, have no application to the facts of the present case.

16. It is, on the basis that there is no evidence to show that the beneficiaries in both the cases were appointed without qualifications and their appointments were beyond the sanctioned strength, the Labour Court, in my view, has correctly come to the conclusion that the beneficiaries are entitled for the benefits under the settlements under Sections 12(3) and 18(1) and accordingly, granted the difference of wages and earned leave benefits to the extent of Rs. 2,98,371/- to the beneficiary in C.P. No. 619 of 2003 and in respect of the beneficiary in C.P. No. 209 of 2004, granted the difference of wages, bonus and earned leave benefits to the extent of Rs. 2,42,579/- with interest. 17. In such circumstances, the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Management, Tirunelveli Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., Tirunelveli v. P. Pechimuthu 2009 (5) MLJ 409 on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case, as the decision was rendered under the Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. In that case, appointment was made without adherence to the prescribed qualifications and beyond the sanctioned strength. In such situation, it was held that the appointment itself was not legal and the subsequent conferment will not give any right to claim benefits prior to their regularisation.

18. The judgment of the Division Bench in L. Justin v. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies 2002 (4) CTC 385 would also apply to the cases of illegal appointment of employees. In that case, the appointment made without qualifications and beyond the sanctioned strength is held to be a back door entry. On the factual assertion as tested by the Labour Court in the impugned award wherein it has been found that there is no evidence to show that the beneficiaries were appointed without qualifications and beyond the sanctioned strength, the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners have no application.

19. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the beneficiaries. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. It is made clear that as per the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, the concerned beneficiaries alone are entitled to receive the benefits. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.