Disposed

Chithara Madhu v. the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Kerala HC20 Mar 2013WP(C)/6862/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that employees are entitled to join their respective banks immediately based on a deployment agreement between the bifurcated entities. Pending writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous, but the Registrar was directed to process the minutes confirming seniority.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd Respondent to approve Ext. P12 within two weeks; employees permitted to join duty immediately; other petitions dismissed as infructuous.

Chithara Madhu Vs the Assistant Registrar of… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/29TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6862 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

CHITHARA MADHU, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.Q-167, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶9

SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCETIES (GENERAL), KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506. (SPECIAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.Q.1511).

¶12

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCETIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

Kss

..2/-

....2.....

WPC.NO.6862/2012 G

¶19

*ADDL.R5,R6 & R7 IMPLEADED:

¶20

R5. A.S.NOLD, DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBER, KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.Q167, KOLLAM.

¶21

R6. A.K.HAFEES, DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBER, KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO Q167, KOLLAM.

¶22

R7. V.SATHYASEELAN, DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBER, KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.Q167, KOLLAM.

¶23

**(ADDL.R5, R6& R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/04/2012 IN IA 5122/2012)*

¶24

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY K.T. ADDL.R5,R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2013 ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 7144/2012 AND WPC. NO.22460/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Kss

¶27

WPC.NO.6862/2012 G

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF EMPLOYEES AS ON 31.11.2011.

¶31

EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE DRAFT SCHEME APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 26.11.2011.

¶32

EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL BODY HELD ON 7.12.2011.

¶33

EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING NO. XVII OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HELD ON 7.2.2012.

¶34

EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C.R.B.7746/2011, DTD.10.2.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.R.B. 7746/11, DTD.8.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATION OF THE DIVISION OF EMPLOYEES, BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DTD.7.2.2012.

¶37

EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1/2012 DTD.15.3.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WA NO.417/ 2012, DTD.13.3.2012.

¶39

EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.15.3.2012.

¶40

EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATION.

¶41

EXT.P12: COPY OF THE JOINT REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE KOTTARAKKARA PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK DTD. 05/11/2012.

¶42

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶43

R4(A): COPY OF GENERAL BODY DECISION FORWARDED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶44

R4(B): COPIES OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 10/01/2012 VIDE CRB 7746/11.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J

¶49

W.P.(C). NO. 6862, 7144 & 22460 OF 2012

¶50

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2013

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

These writ petitions relates to bifurcation of Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank as Kollam as well as Kottarakara. This bifurcation is made based on an amendment to the Co-operative Societies Act. The issue involved related to the decision taken by the Joint Registrar and the Special Officer not agreeing to the decision taken by the Managing Committee bifurcating the employees into two separate Banks. All of the petitioners joined the respective Banks but there is a contention that for certain period of time the petitioners had not worked in those institutions.

¶53

The fact remains that the petitioner Bank in W.P.(C). No. 6862/2012 have now produced Ext. P12 which is the Minutes between the Managing Committee of both the Banks. On a perusal of Ext. P12 it is seen that the petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 7144/2012 are shown as serial nos. 7 and 17 respectively as

¶54

¶55

W.P.(C). NO. 6862, 7144 & 22460 OF 2012

¶56

employees of the Kollam Bank and petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 22460/2012 is shown as Senior Supervisor of the Kottarakara Bank. This Minutes is placed before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies for approval. On approval, definitely the claim of the petitioners to become the employees of the respective Banks will be confirmed. It is not in dispute that they were all working in the Banks originally and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank that Sri. Hasheer has already joined the Kollam Bank.

¶57

The other petitioners are also willing to join the respective Banks immediately. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 22460/2012 and W.P.(C). No. 7144/2012 submits that the Bank had requested them to join duty on withdrawing the writ petition. Since the Bank themselves have agreed to permit the petitioners to join duty I do not think that there is any necessity to consider their writ petitions on merits, especially in the light of deployment agreement between the two Banks as evident from Ext. P12. Therefore it is made clear that the petitioners Sri. T.M. Mathewkutty and Sri. S. Jayachandran shall be entitled to join the respective Banks from

¶58

W.P.(C). NO. 6862, 7144 & 22460 OF 2012

¶59

¶60

tomorrow itself.

¶61

If there is any dispute regarding the question as to whether any of the petitioners had worked or not worked in the respective Banks it is open for the respective parties to agitate the said issues independently and disposal of these writ petitions shall not stand in the way of them claiming their rights before the appropriate forum.

¶62

In the result these writ petitions are disposed of as follows:i) The 2^nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P12 in W.P.(C). No. 6862/2012 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶63

ii) In view of the agreement between the two Banks the employees shall be permitted to join duty in their respective positions as stated in Ext. P12.

¶64

iii) W.P.(C). No. 22460/2012 and W.P.(C). No. 7144/2012 has become infructuous and these writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous.

¶65

iv) It is made clear that disposal of these writ petitions shall not affect the rights of the employees concerned for making any claim if they have.

¶66

W.P.(C). NO. 6862, 7144 & 22460 OF 2012

¶67

¶68

v) If the petitioners have worked for any period which is

¶69

admitted by the Banks they shall be entitled to claim salary from the respective Banks and Banks shall pay such salary accordingly.

¶70

sd/-

¶71

A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶72

DCS

Chithara Madhu v. the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chithara Madhu v. the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumaramangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs T.M. Thomas

Shabna Afsal Vs State of Kerala

M.L.Radhabai Vs K.S.Ramesan Nair

Raji Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

D.Raveendran Vs the State Level Committee on Sales Tax

Sheena M. Vs State of Kerala